It may be that we are not doing a good job adding terms to the RFC list
of abbreviations which do not need expansion on first use.
However, in terms of what you state below, an RFC which introduces a new
abbreviation can almost never meet the requirements for that
abbreviation appearing in the RFC Editor list. As almost by definition
the new term is not yet in wide use and widely recognized without
expansion. (There may be an exception or two where the RFC is
recognizing a term that is already in use. I said almost.)
Yours,
Joel
On 7/25/2020 6:57 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
Well, i will invite you to the next discuss where an AD wants to educate
a WG as to the appropriate use of some abbreeviation for a new expansion
by referring to the RFC abbreviation list.
I for once don't think it is difficult to get things added. Indeed, i
have simply added to my drafts an RFC-editor note stating which new
abbreviations i would like to have added, something i think that
should bhave been done for other now ubiquouts abbreviations as
well.
Just as a reminder, why this thread came into place: I think we're
not doing a well structured job on the RFC abbreviations list and
i was just pointing that out as a bad example for how to not do things
for someting like a "recommended new replacement acronyms" list
that probably would ahve to evolve from that other folks thred we're
just having here on the list.
Cheers
Toerless
On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 06:30:08PM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
The ADs do not own the RFC Editor list of abbreviations which do not need
expansion.
As a first approximation, as long as an abbreviation is considered new, it
is extremely unlikely to be added by the RSE (or equivalent person). The
point of that list is to list things that are so well known even outside the
narrow field of use that it is reasonable to expect people to know the
abbreviation.
Personally, I wouldn't care if that list were reduced to zero. Out goal is
to write clear documents. expanding abbreviations / acornyms on first use
is a good idea. I do understand that we do not bother with things like IP,
TCP, HTTP. So having a list is useful. But if people complain about how
hard it is to get anything on the list, I will push to remove it entirely.
Yours,
Joel
On 7/25/2020 6:15 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
If we can put the most important new standards into RFC abbreviation list
even after i tell an AD twice, then i don't think we can deal with
new technical terms in the organization any better.
On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 11:34:43PM +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On 2020-07-25, at 23:04, Toerless Eckert <tte@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
For exmple i have to observe a real bad execution on evolving the
RFC abbreviations list, and every time i pointed to problems,
they where not fixed, and ADs did not bother to pick up the problem.
True. One of these ???medium importance??? issues??? Hard to get attention for them.
I think we need a calendar to attend to them once a year or so.
Grüße, Carsten
