>> There has been a discussion recently on LTRU as to whether a Terms and >> Definitions section should be introduced within RFCs - much like those >> within ISO Standards. >> > > And my response to this suggestion is the same as it was for the "IANA > considerations" or "Internationalization considerations" section suggestions: > By all means have a "terms and definitions" section or whatever in the document > if there's a need for one, but don't make having one mandatory in all > documents. > > We already have more than enough useless (from a technical content > perspective) boilerplate in our documents. +1 Actually I don't have so much of a problem with having such sections in drafts at review time, but I hate to see them clutter up published RFCs. There are a lot of times when these sections aren't applicable, and having them in the final document just interferes with readability. I also think that a Terms and Definitions section might encourage document authors to make up new terms when they're not necessary, which would also interfere with readability. (geeks love to create new language.) _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf