Hi Adrian, This is up to you reading the abbrev.expansion.txt I noticed that "Some abbreviations are so well known that expansion is probably unnecessary. The RFC Editor exercises editorial judgment about whether a particular use of one of the "well-known" abbreviations requires expansion." So it will be up to the RFC editor. At least for me as a reader who is not familiar with all the abbreviations in the draft I found that even if they are expanded on the first usage it will be easier if all abbreviations are in one place in the document, but this may be a separate discussion on general draft structure. As for the abbrev.expansion.txt, it does not help since there is no reference to it in draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap and as mentioned some abbreviations have multiple expansions even in the RFC editor list (e.g. FEC). Roni > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 1:16 PM > To: 'Roni Even'; draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced- > dsmap.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: gen-art@xxxxxxxx; 'IETF-Discussion list' > Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced- > dsmap-09 > > Thanks Roni, > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > > 1. Need to expand LDP when first mentioned. > > LDP is a recognised acronym at > http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt and does > not need > to be expanded. > > Cheers, > Adrian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf