Re: [rfc-i] Call for Review of draft-iab-styleguide-01.txt, "RFC Style Guide"
2014-03-04 19:29:39
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
<mailto:abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>>
The most important comment for me as start message is that the 1st
April RFC should be categorised different than IETF standards.
IMHO, The past RFC style is not a reasonable style of the world or the
future best practices. In considering our standards business and
our documents reputation, we should not make jokes with our followers
only if we are sure all like such jokes.
I don't want to stop that Style type, but it should be easily
discriminated by readers/users from other real work/business.
All April 1st RFCs *ARE* categorized different than IETF standards. The
problem is your equating "RFC == IETF Standard".
Repeat this mantra 10,000 times or until you fully grok it: Only some
RFCs are standards; the rest are not.
Tony Hansen
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Call for Review of draft-iab-styleguide-01.txt, "RFC Style Guide", IAB Chair
- Re: Call for Review of draft-iab-styleguide-01.txt, "RFC Style Guide", Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: Call for Review of draft-iab-styleguide-01.txt, "RFC Style Guide", George, Wes
- Re: [rfc-i] Call for Review of draft-iab-styleguide-01.txt, "RFC Style Guide",
Tony Hansen <=
- Message not available
- Re: Call for Review of draft-iab-styleguide-01.txt, "RFC Style Guide", Murray S. Kucherawy
- RE: Call for Review of draft-iab-styleguide-01.txt, "RFC Style Guide", l.wood
- Call for Review of draft-iab-styleguide-01.txt, "RFC Style Guide", Abdussalam Baryun
Re: Call for Review of draft-iab-styleguide-01.txt, "RFC Style Guide", Tom Taylor
|
|
|