[rfc-i] Expanding acronyms in titles can be harmful (Fwd: [ipwave] Expertise on ND problems on OCB)

Carsten Bormann cabo at tzi.org
Thu Apr 25 12:48:08 PDT 2019


FYI (from a discussion the actual content of which is irrelevant here).
It is interesting how a not-so-useful acronym expansion was repeatedly used to discount a document from consideration that actually is highly pertinent.
(Note that this happens not only inside the IETF, where we see the misunderstanding and can correct it; the damage is actually with other SDOs not understanding what a document is about because the acronym expansions are getting in the way.)

Grüße, Carsten


> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Carsten Bormann <cabo at tzi.org <mailto:cabo at tzi.org>>
> Subject: Re: [ipwave] Expertise on ND problems on OCB
> Date: April 25, 2019 at 21:42:20 GMT+2
> To: "draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all at ietf.org <mailto:draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all at ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all at ietf.org <mailto:draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all at ietf.org>>
> Cc: "ietf at ietf.org <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>" <ietf at ietf.org <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>>, "its at ietf.org <mailto:its at ietf.org>" <its at ietf.org <mailto:its at ietf.org>>, "int-dir at ietf.org <mailto:int-dir at ietf.org>" <int-dir at ietf.org <mailto:int-dir at ietf.org>>
> 
> 
>>> 	• RFC 8505 isn't just about low power. 
>> The titles says that, so the authors said that and including the IETF WG that published and examined it under such use cases
> 
> Actually, it doesn’t.
> 
> The title is 
> 
> Registration Extensions for IPv6 over
> 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery
> 
> because 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery was invented for 6LoWPAN before we started applying it to the entirety of 6Lo.
> 
> The RFC editor guidelines caused this to be expanded to:
> 
> Registration Extensions for IPv6 over
> Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor Discovery
> 
> which is indeed the expansion of “6LoWPAN”, but does not help at all — it just muddies the waters by polluting the title with terms that are no longer relevant to the document at hand.
> 
> (I’m not going to go into the other parts of the current discussion; I have no idea how something like OCB can be discussed without acknowledging the hidden terminal problem, a.k.a. non-transitive connectivity, so it seems to me I won't have much to contribute.)
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20190425/708f527c/attachment.html>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list