[rfc-i] Comments about draft-flanagan-style-00

SM sm at resistor.net
Mon Nov 5 16:51:02 PST 2012


Hi Dave,
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 
>about style...

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.)

Yes.

>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.

Regards,
-sm 



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list