- From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:27:15 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
- Cc: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, Debbie Garside <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>, ietf@ietf.org, discuss@apps.ietf.org, 'Iljitsch van Beijnum' <iljitsch@muada.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, bmanning@ISI.EDU, saag@mit.edu, ietf-http-auth@osafoundation.org
> >> There has been a discussion recently on LTRU as to whether a Terms and > >> Definitions section should be introduced within RFCs - much like those > >> within ISO Standards. > >> > > > > And my response to this suggestion is the same as it was for the "IANA > > considerations" or "Internationalization considerations" section suggestions: > > By all means have a "terms and definitions" section or whatever in the document > > if there's a need for one, but don't make having one mandatory in all > > documents. > > > > We already have more than enough useless (from a technical content > > perspective) boilerplate in our documents. > +1 > Actually I don't have so much of a problem with having such sections in > drafts at review time, but I hate to see them clutter up published > RFCs. My position is the exact opposite. Full and complete review of drafts it of paramount importance and anything thqt interferes with that is unacceptable. And as I have pointed out, we have "running code" demonstrating that these things are at best distracting and at worst actively interfere with proper review. What's appropriate to appear in the final RFC is up to the RFC Editor. That's what the word "editor" implies. If the RFC Editor deems it appropriate to remove null sections that's fine, if they feel they should be retained that's fine too. Someone reading an RFC to learn how to implement something has a definite goal in mind and isn't going to be (or at least shouldn't be) distracted by boilerplate in the same way a reviewer looking for issues - a far more nebulous proposition - can be. > There are a lot of times when these sections aren't applicable, > and having them in the final document just interferes with readability. It depends on what sort of reading you're doing. > I also think that a Terms and Definitions section might encourage > document authors to make up new terms when they're not necessary, which > would also interfere with readability. (geeks love to create new language.) Very good point. Having lots of slightly varying definitions of various terms could be hugely harmful. RFC 2119 is a case in point. While I have some small issues with how RFC 2119 defines its terms, I've come to realize that having consistent meanings for these terms is far more important. Ned
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2007 20:42:07 UTC