[rfc-i] Style Guide and Abstract guidance

Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) rse at rfc-editor.org
Tue Sep 12 16:36:21 PDT 2017


On 9/10/17 9:42 PM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> On 2017/09/11 07:18, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> 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.
>
> The text below explicitly says:
>
>                       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.
>
> If the title consumes two lines, then a short description may be
> shorter (and clearer :-) than the title, and can be used instead. So I
> think we are covered. But of course, the text can still be improved.

Thanks, all. This has been helpful, and a revised draft has now been posted.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-flanagan-7322bis/

-Heather


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list