--On Wednesday, 14 July, 2004 18:06 -0700 Christian Huitema <huitema@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >... > Or consider the RFC that describes Classical IP and ARP over > Automatic Teller Machines... What did you say an ARP was? Some sort of fuzzy alien, perhaps? A digestive sound made after excessive SIPPING ? Or, given those teller machines, perhaps an Advanced Reimbursement Procedure? <grin> I am not suggesting that we never expand an abbreviation and never explain an acronym. I suggest only that * we need to rethink the application of the rules a bit for situations in which the constructed or shortened term has become a word in its own right and, more important, in which an expansion would tend to confuse rather than illuminate, and * that we get a little more serious about the requirement that abstracts be sufficient for someone who doesn't know what the document is about to figure that out because titles will never be able to adequately do that job. For the second, pretend that you are reading the title that Christian cites above: "Classical IP and ARP over ATM". Now pretend that you don't know much about that corner of the IETF's work, or even that you are an applications type who doesn't know much about _anything_ at that layer. Now expand the abbreviations and try to convince yourself that you would know something you didn't know with the present title. Reaction to present title: "Huh? Strange abbreviations". Reaction to title with abbreviations expanded: "Huh? What on earth do those words mean?" I don't see a lot of difference. john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf