Re: Acronyms

[Daniel Senie <dts at senie.com>]

At 06:20 PM 9/9/01, Bob Braden wrote:
> Jiwoong,
>
> In my view, any acronynm that would not be instantly understood by 98%
> of the IETF should be defined the first time it appears in the
> document.  This seems like just plain common sense and courtesy to the
> reader.
>
> The RFC Editor has started to enforce this usage in the Abstract
> section of an RFC.  It might not be a bad idea to enforce it
> everywhere.

Guess I'm not the only one who finds it annoying to read a draft title 
which is chock full of acronyms, and then an abstract which says the same 
thing, with the same acronyms... If I can't determine what the author is 
talking about from the announcement that gets sent to ietf-announce, 
there's a good chance I won't read the draft and make comments.

I think this should go beyond RFCs, and perhaps be added to the Guidelines 
for Authors of Drafts.

Dan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Senie                                        dts at senie.com
Amaranth Networks Inc.                    http://www.amaranth.com