Mike's assessment seems reasonable to me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:Gonzalo.Camarillo@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:36 AM > To: C. M. Heard > Cc: IETF; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); GEN-ART > Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-heard-rfc4181-update (RFC 4181 > Update to Recognize the IETF Trust) to BCP [WAS: Gen-art > review of draft-heard-rfc4181-update-00.txt] > > Hi Mike, > > as the review says, they are just nits. If you disagree with > them, feel free to ignore them (as long as your AD is also OK > with that, of course). > > Cheers, > > Gonzalo > > > C. M. Heard wrote: > > On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > >> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) > >> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see > >> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). > >> > >> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last > Call comments > >> you may receive. > > > > I will do so, and in that spirit I'm posting my response to > the IETF > > list with the subject line changed. My apologies for the delay in > > replying. > > > >> Draft: draft-heard-rfc4181-update-00.txt > >> Reviewer: Gonzalo Camarillo > <Gonzalo.Camarillo@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Review > >> Date: 23 January 2006 IETF LC Date: 16 January 2006 > >> > >> > >> Summary: > >> > >> This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that > >> should be fixed before publication. > >> > >> > >> Comments: > >> > >> The title of the draft could be more explicit. Now it mentions RFC > >> 4181. It could also indicate that it is an update to the > Guidelines > >> for Authors and Reviewers of MIB Documents. > > > > I disagree with this comment -- I believe that doing as it suggests > > would make the title unnecessarily long. Note that the Abstract > > already spells out the full title of RFC 4181. > > > >> Acronyms (e.g., MIB) should be expanded on their first use. > > > > The only places where the acronym "MIB" is used are in the Abstract > > and the References, where the title of RFC 4181 is quoted. The > > acronym is not expanded in that title, and it would be > inappropriate > > to do so in a citation, which is supposed to quote the > exact title of > > the document being cited. > > > > Also, I believe that "MIB" qualifies as an appreviation that is so > > firmly extablished in IETF usage that its use is very unlikely to > > cause uncertainty or ambiguity and so is exempt from the > usual acronym > > expansion requirement. Granted that it is not explicitly > mentioned in > > http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.abbrevs, but several > > recent RFCs using the acronym "MIB" have appeared without it being > > expanded anywhere. RFC 4181 and RFC 4663 are examples. > > > > The only other acronym I see is IETF, and that one is explicitly > > mentioned in http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.abbrevs. > > > >> The draft should be divided into pages, none of which > should exceed > >> 58 lines. > > > > Unless I'm required to make another revision for other reasons, I'd > > like to let the RFC Editor take care of that (which they > will do anyway) ... > > my apologies if the lack of pagination has caused any > readability problems. > > > > Mike > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf