Hi, There is a list of acronyms at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt Those marked with a star do not need to be expanded in any new I-D or RFC. Those not marked need to be expanded on first use in the Abstract and in the main body of the text (the Abstract is supposed to be free-standing). Over time, the RFC Editor adds stars. I suspect they are susceptible to lobbying. Cheers, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eric > Rosen > Sent: 28 October 2010 20:07 > To: James M. Polk > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx; ice@xxxxxxxxx; tme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; danny@xxxxxxx; > ycai@xxxxxxxxx; erosen@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-01 > > > James> perhaps this needs to be stated (that the Type 4 is created by > James> this doc for your purpose)? > > I think the doc already makes this clear, maybe I'm not sure what you are asking. > > James> You can probably imagine how many SIP and RSVP protocol > James> extensions there are (70+ and about 20 respectively off the top > James> of my head), and yet every one of them have to state "Session > James> Initiation Protocol (SIP)" and "ReSource ReserVation Protocol > James> (version-1) (RSVPv1)" the first time they appear, no matter how > James> big the community of interest is. > > And this makes sense to you? > > Okay, I will expand the occurrence of "S-PMSI" in the abstract. > > On the issue of the maximum UDP packet size, I think that is an implementation > issue and I don't think it is appropriate to raise it in this document. > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf