Hi, ... >> I worry about the >> >> "abstract should contain enough detail to help readers decide if they need to read the rest of the RFC” >> >> This may result in a long Abstract depending on the nature of the “update” and defeat the purpose of the abstract >> if it gets too long. I think the update text in Abstract should be limited to a few sentences and that the IESG statement >> include something to that effect. > > I agree with you on the length. I think we assumed that detail to “decide if you need to read the document” could be done > in a a few sentences. We could add something to that effect, but I don’t think we want to take on the general topic of “what > makes a good abstract” in this statement. I think there shall always be an "Update to RFC XXXX" section, where the actual updates are defined. The updates may be clear to the people who have been working on the spec, but maybe not to others. In addition, the Introduction (rather than the Abstract) can give an overview of what the updates are. Regards, Christer
