mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx writes: > > 1.1. Scope and Intended Use > > > > Connectivity services are provided by networks to customers > > via > > dedicated terminating points, such as Service Functions (SFs) > > [RFC****], Customer Edges (CEs), peer Autonomous System Border > > ... > > This document adheres to the definition of an Attachment > > Circuit as > > provided in Section 1.2 of [RFC****], especially: > > ... > > > > For people who are not familiar of all mappings from the random > > RFC numbers to titles of the RFCs it would be better to make sure > > that each any RFC number is referenced you also expand the short > > title for the document. > > [Med] I still think this is a matter of editing taste. The reference > list has the full details to cross check if needed. But it should be matter of reading test, not for editing taste. We should be trying to write the documents to be easy to read and understand, not to be easy to edit... Google gives also same answers. While reading this draft I had to google up the RFC numbers quite a lot of times, and had to do it multiple times for some RFCs, as I just do NOT want to learn mapping from RFC number to title for all RFCs. If you provide the titles for the RFC numbers that makes it much easier for the reader who is new to the area, or not completely familiar with the area to read and follow the text. People who are familiar with the area will simply skip those few words if they already have learned that specific RFC number to title mapping. If this document is one of those documents where it is expected that writers of the document are more numerous than readers, meaning the editing taste is more important than making it readable, then I think we should not bother publishing this as RFC at all. -- kivinen@xxxxxx -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
