[rfc-i] Style Guide and Abstract guidance

Martin Thomson martin.thomson at gmail.com
Sun Sep 10 15:18:56 PDT 2017


I hope that the omission of a final period is just a copy-paste error.

The requirement to include an RFC title will make things more
cumbersome.  I agree with Brian that allowing an abbreviated title
would be wise.  A recent document has a title that consumes two lines
on its own.

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
<rse at rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> After some discussion with the IESG, I'm proposing a substantive change
> to the guidance around Abstracts. The goal is to make the Abstract more
> clear in setting the context of the document. I'd like community
> feedback before I update the draft. Thoughts?
>
> CURRENT:
> 4.3.  Abstract Section
>
>    Every RFC must have an Abstract that provides a concise and
>    comprehensive overview of the purpose and contents of the entire
>    document, to give a technically knowledgeable reader a general
>    overview of the function of the document.
>
>    Composing a useful Abstract generally requires thought and care.
>    Usually, an Abstract should begin with a phrase like "This memo ..."
>    or "This document ..."  A satisfactory Abstract can often be
>    constructed in part from material within the Introduction section,
>    but an effective Abstract may be shorter, less detailed, and perhaps
>    broader in scope than the Introduction.  Simply copying and pasting
>    the first few paragraphs of the Introduction is allowed, but it may
>    result in an Abstract that is both incomplete and redundant.  Note
>    also that an Abstract is not a substitute for an Introduction; the
>    RFC should be self-contained as if there were no Abstract.
>
>    Similarly, the Abstract should be complete in itself.  It will appear
>    in isolation in publication announcements and in the online index of
>    RFCs.  Therefore, the Abstract must not contain citations.
>
>
> PROPOSED:
> 4.3.  Abstract Section
>
>    Every RFC must have an Abstract that provides a concise and
>    comprehensive overview of the purpose and contents of the entire
>    document, to give a technically knowledgeable reader a general
>    overview of the function of the document and some context with
>    regards to its relationship (in particular, whether it updates or
>    obsoletes) any other RFCs.  In addition to its function in the RFC
>    itself, the Abstract section text will appear in publication
>    announcements and in the online index of RFCs.
>
>    Composing a useful Abstract generally requires thought and care.
>    Usually, an Abstract should begin with a phrase like "This memo ..."
>    or "This document ..."  A satisfactory Abstract can often be
>    constructed in part from material within the Introduction section,
>    but an effective Abstract may be shorter, less detailed, and perhaps
>    broader in scope than the Introduction.  Simply copying and pasting
>    the first few paragraphs of the Introduction is allowed, but it may
>    result in an Abstract that is overly long, incomplete, and redundant.
>
>    An Abstract is not a substitute for an Introduction; the
>    RFC should be self-contained as if there were no Abstract.
>    Similarly, the Abstract should be complete in itself.  Given that the
>    Abstract will appear independently in announcements
>    and indices, mentions of other RFCs within the Abstract should
>    include both an RFC number and  title.  If a short description
>    is clearer than the literal title, it may be included in addition
>    or instead.  Any documents that are Updated or Obsoleted by the RFC
>    must be mentioned in the Abstract.  These may be presented in a
>    list format if that improves readability
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list