[Iccrg] Re: [Tsvwg] review solicitation for ICCRG congestion
weddy at grc.nasa.gov
Fri Jan 12 21:05:04 GMT 2007
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 12:33:14PM -0800, Erblichs wrote:
> New item: Secondly, can I suggest a different per RFC layout.
> In my opinion, each RFC listing item should include the type of RFC,
> the date, the first author, and then the abstract. To give a
> different summary than the abstract is inconsistent to what was
> initially published for the RFC,IMO.
I can explain some of the logic for the current format, but to be clear,
I don't have any format preference as long as it's useful to readers:
(1) The type of RFC was left out because in certain sections, it ends
up that all the documents are Informational, and in others all of
them are Standards Track or all are Experimental.
(2) Author names were left out because they're in the References section
at the end of the document anyways. Personally, I'd rather see the
name of the working group that produced the document, or whether it
was an individual submission, or an IAB document, etc, than the author's
(3) Some of the full abstracts were often left out because some are
rather long due to containing a lot of introductory statements that
don't add much in the context of our document.
(4) I think giving a different summary than the abstract is *very* useful
in some cases because sometimes it lets the reader know how the document
has held up over time. We probably haven't done it enough in the 00
version, but it's often useful to know that certain RFCs have not really
been widely implemented (e.g. RFC 3124, to pick on one). We might also
mention the controversy regarding ECN nonces in the entry for RFC 3540,
for another example. I notice we don't have much of this kind of
supplemental (and more interesting) information in the document yet,
but maybe RG participants can provide more juicy summaries for particular
documents when they review the list.
Wesley M. Eddy
Verizon Federal Network Systems
More information about the Iccrg