[rfc-i] Some ideas to improve RFCs

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Mon Oct 6 12:19:16 PDT 2014

On 07/10/2014 07:45, John Levine wrote:
>>> What do you think? Do you think that we can start writing a
>>> document to help authors how to choose a good meaningfule title
>>> with an acceptable length?
>> This might be appropriate for an IESG statement?
> Possibly, although I would think that encouraging people to choose
> a good title would be an appropriate part of the editorial process.

It applies to all RFC streams so it is not an IESG matter.
It's an RFC Editor matter and, oh, look:

Similarly for the abstract:

>> I am particularly curious as to whether people would find keywords
>> presented at the top of the future HTML publication format a useful
>> thing,
> They're mostly useful for searching, so they'd be just dandy in
> the metadata in the header.  Search engines know all about them,
> and I believe they can be included in the DOI metadata.
> The HTML looks like this:
> <meta name="keywords" content="TCP,networking,X.500,kludge">
> I don't think I've ever found keywords within the displayed document
> itself useful.

No, especially with the modern indexing method known as Google. They
used to have some value when indexing tools were incapable of
extracting keywords from the document itself, but even so, a well
chosen title is always better IMHO.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list