Subject: Re: [lemonade] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-lemonade-compress-06.txt

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:50:56 -0800

I noticed that references switched from being names in -05 to RFC 
numbers in -06.  Personally, I find names to be more helpful, 
especially in the case of those documents whose numbers I haven't 
memorized.
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
Certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.    --Dorothea

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 10:58:55 +0100

> especially in the case of those documents whose numbers I haven't 

Yes, I switched in all the documents I edited some time ago, and now 
that I've done it I'm stubborn about it. For two reasons:

1. I found a couple of references to "[NAME] section 1.2.3" where the 
1.2.3 had moved. Checking and updating all of the possible stale 
references was rather unpleasant.

2. I ran into cases where I found that the language was significantly 
clearer if I didn't try to use one name both for a specifying document 
and for that which is specifies.

So I sat down to a large edit job, aiming to make all the text discuss 
its subject matter (such as IMAP) and all the references refer to 
documents (such as RFC 3501 or 4466). You should always be able to read 
and understand a sentence without looking up any references. If not 
that's a mistake on my part.

Arnt

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:14:28 -0800

At 10:58 AM +0100 1/11/07, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

>  Yes, I switched in all the documents I edited some time ago, and 
> now that I've done it I'm stubborn about it. For two reasons:
>
>  1. I found a couple of references to "[NAME] section 1.2.3" where 
> the 1.2.3 had moved. Checking and updating all of the possible 
> stale references was rather unpleasant.
>
>  2. I ran into cases where I found that the language was 
> significantly clearer if I didn't try to use one name both for a 
> specifying document and for that which is specifies.

But both issues are independent of the use of names or numbers to 
refer to a document.  You can say "as specified in [IMAP]" or "as 
specified in IMAP [IMAP-base]" or "as specified in IMAP [RFC3501]".

>  So I sat down to a large edit job, aiming to make all the text 
> discuss its subject matter (such as IMAP) and all the references 
> refer to documents (such as RFC 3501 or 4466).

That can be done regardless of the choice of a symbolic name or an 
RFC number to refer to a document.

>  You should always be able to read and understand a sentence without 
> looking up any references. If not that's a mistake on my part.

I think the ease of understanding depends on the text, but is always 
easier with a symbolic name for barRef instead of just an RFC number. 
Perhaps it depends on one's style when reading documents.

-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
A server is only as secure as its dumbest administrator
                                         --Steve Dorner