[rfc-i] Comments on draft-iab-styleguide-02

Elwyn Davies elwynd at folly.org.uk
Mon Apr 21 04:52:13 PDT 2014

Hi, Heather/Sandy.

A few comments on the style guide:

s4.2, last para:
The RFC Editor recommends that documents a particular company's 
   private protocol
The RFC Editor recommends that an RFC that documents a particular company's
   private protocol

s4.7: How many levels deep in sub-sections should the ToC go?

s4.8: Authors are being encouraged to discuss operations and management
considerations. Could this be mentioned?

s4.8.2: One well-known misuse of 'requirement words' is trying to
control things that not actually part of the protocol, typically things
that are at the whim of or due to the incompetence of the user or
administrator.  A few words about req words only being used for things
that are actually controllable by the protocol might be helpful.

s4.8.5: Given the current focus on Snowdonia etc., it might be useful to
mention privacy considerations either as part of security or as a
separate section?  There has been some discussion of this on the perpass
list and I know Stephen Farrell is keen to get authors to think about
this aspect of protocols.

s4.8.6: Is there a preference for mnemonic as compared to numeric
reference tags?  This isn't currently stated but I thought that the RFC
Editor generally preferred mnemonic tags.

s4.8.6: Perhaps note that only standards track docs have Normative Refs.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list