Hiya, On 12/09/18 22:18, 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? Take a peek at [1]. IMO the second para in the abstract is neither needed nor useful. And such text has been the source of irritation for authors (when they're called out for not having done something they see as silly) and also (IMO) pointless IESG debate. So forcing that para to be there is not a good part of the proposed IESG statement. That said, as others said, it's not the end of the world if it stays, but better to do better I'd argue. S. [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8447 > 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]
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
