[rfc-i] Some ideas to improve RFCs

Dave Crocker dhc at dcrocker.net
Mon Oct 6 12:23:43 PDT 2014

On 10/6/2014 7:21 AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
> On 10/6/14, 2:10 PM, "Hosnieh Rafiee" <hosnieh.rafiee at huawei.com> wrote:
>>> If the abstract is hard to understand, then that is a problem that
>>> needs to be fixed. A set of keywords can't substitute the abstract.
>>> So -1 on adding visible keywords (or even a link).

I agree.

> I see the keywords as much more useful for search engines than humans.  

The theory of keywords is good.  It's the practice that is problematic.

First, people are generally inconsistent, at best, at doing keywords.

Second, it's just one more activity to worry about.  And we already have
enough problems with quality control on RFC development.

The single most useful improvement in this space would be to focus on
making sure that the Abstract is sufficiently useful for people who are
not already part of the community that produced the document.


Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list