[rfc-i] Comments about draft-flanagan-style-00
sm at resistor.net
Mon Nov 5 16:51:02 PST 2012
At 15:51 05-11-2012, Dave Crocker wrote:
>Permitting blank or Independent or Retired does not assume an affiliation.
What I meant was that "Independent" can be confusing.
>I agree. However ultimately this is the choice of the author. If
>the authors /wants/ the tag "Independent", why not let them use it.
I am ok with that.
>We should probably develop a style manual for writing the document
That was a nit. :-)
>Actually I could argue for /more/ guidance, rather than less.
Yes. I'd say that it can be difficult to get the Abstract "right",
hence more guidance. I prefer to see that in the Wiki.
>Again, this is a topic about which there has been confusion. A
>document like this should provide reasonably clear guidance about
>what qualifies and normative and what doesn't. (I do not, for
>example, that the rule should be left to the streams. Consistency
>on this is important.)
>However, we shouldn't refer to them as uppercase terms. We should
>refer to them as normative directives that are typically shown in upper case.
Sorry, I used that term loosely.
>As for the non-normative alternatives, there's a draft Tony and I
>wrote that provides more detail that the overly terse treatment in
>the current draft.
I read the draft. Given the usual headaches about requirements I
prefer not to get too much into that topic.
More information about the rfc-interest