John,
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 5:34 PM John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
IESG,
I hope this can be corrected quietly in editing (because
otherwise we waste time on any appeal), but, for most of the
last 50 years, we've avoided the use of RFC numbers as the main
information-carrying element of document titles. While it was
probably a fine working title within a working group devoted to
the specific subject matter, unless one is either very familiar
with the subject matter or really, really, good at remembering
document numbers (presumably all nearly 8500 of them) "RFC 4960
Errate and Issues" conveys no information at all. Even there
are no square brackets, it violates the RFC Editor's
long-standing guideline against citations in Abstracts as well
as the spirit of prohibitions of non-obvious abbreviations
without spelling things out on first use.
"Stream Control Transmission Protocol Errate and Issues" follows
the title of RFC 4960 and would seem obvioss. Or, if the WG and
the IESG want to get the number in, "Stream Control Transmission
Protocol (RFC 4960) Errate and Issues" would seem plausible from
an information content standpoint.
Sorry I didn't catch this on Last Call, but I don't have time to
follow efforts outside my area of technical expertise these
days. I observe that this getting past WG review, IETF Last
Call, and IESG review may reflect badly on the quality of our
final reviews these days, but let's treat that as another issue.
best,
john
I'd e-mail the RFC Editor instantly to make this correction when we coalesce around the right wording - and the suggestions I'm seeing further down in this thread seem very reasonable, but I'm replying to your e-mail to say "thank you for noticing something I should have noticed".
Yes, I'm overdue for my left-eye cataract surgery. Now we both know how badly I need it ;-)
And tonight, I'll try to find where I left my seeing eye dog!
Best wishes,
Spencer
