On 12 Sep 2018, at 14:18, Adam Roach wrote:
I still don't follow. If the abstract does not contain enough
information to let someone know whether they want to read the rest of
the RFC, then what purpose *does* it serve?
To tell the reader if they want to read the Introduction. For example,
it should indicate whether this is a description of the new Foo
protocol, or an update to the Foo protocol, or just the definition of an
extension. If it is defining a new protocol, what general realm is that
protocol in?
I note that many (non-IETF) protocol specifications are published
without an abstract at all. If ours doesn't serve any purpose, then
perhaps it's time we discussed whether RFCs need them at all [1].
____
[1] To be clear, I think this would be a Really Bad Idea, but it's the
only logical conclusion I can draw from push-back on a proposal that
our abstracts do the one thing that abstracts are intended to do.
Yes, this is a bad idea, but there are needs of the reader that short
abstracts fill just fine.
--Paul Hoffman
