Subject: Re: [rrg] Next revision

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:12:58 -0800

Hi Wes,

I agree with your sentiment here.  However, given the word count limits, and
the fact that it's going to be hard to tell what usage is first prior to us
having a full document, I suspect that an abbreviations section is highly
appropriate and the best approach.

Would folks care to contribute expansions, please?

Tony

On 1/26/10 1:56 PM, "George, Wes E [NTK]" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> In reading this draft as someone who has not been consistently on-list until
> very recently (December), and understanding that it is a work in progress, I
> have a comment for improved readability for the next pass revision:
> 
> I would strongly recommend exploding any acronyms used in the summaries and
> critiques if they have not been defined previously in the document or section.
> It's currently quite inconsistent - I'm sure that this has a lot to do with
> the number of contributors, plus the ordering of the approaches within the
> draft. However, I get the impression that many authors, in an attempt to
> maximize the available word count, were a bit liberal in terms of what are
> "well-known" acronyms, but they may not all be so well-known to those not
> heavily involved in RRG or already familiar with the particular approach being
> discussed. [I|E|T]TR comes immediately to mind as something that is widely
> used but not defined until late in the draft if at all. ITR, not defined until
> section 8. ETR, not defined until section 13. TTR, not defined at all. PMTUD
> is defined in section 4, but DFZ is not defined when used just a few sentences
> prior. While not all of these examples are necessarily uncommon acronyms, I
> think it makes my point that this needs to be reviewed document-wide. It's
> probably easiest for the original contributor to make this review and provide
> updates as needed, but I'll leave that to the editors' discretion  :-)
> 
> If this is an issue of word-count, this probably shouldn't count towards the
> limit, since it's largely for readability, but I do think that it needs to be
> done if the intent is to have these summaries be truly standalone - In other
> words, I will read the original draft if I need more detailed info about how
> an approach does something, but I shouldn't have to do it in order to get a
> basic sense of how it works because of acronym overload.
> 
> Alternatively, a glossary section could be added, but I think that given the
> size of this draft, inline definitions would be easier for the reader than
> having to scroll to a different section each time they encounter an unknown
> acronym.
> 
> Thanks,
> Wes George
> 
> -----Original Message-----
>

---

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:59:57 -0500 (EST)

> ETR - Exit Tunnel Router:

Argh. s/Exit/Egress/.

	Noel

---

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:46:47 -0500 (EST)

> From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>

    > Of course, if we were to instantly and miraculously get consensus on
    > definitions, I'd be happy to incorporate them.

Why don't you see if anyone has a problem with them, and if not, they're good
to go. (I tried to make them just wishy-washy enough that basically everyone
_would_ be OK with them...)

    >> Provider Independent: Addresses which 'belong to' a site

    > The ARIN lawyers will freak over 'belong to'.

Well, there was a reason it was in quote marks, as a euphemism... :-)

OK, if colloquialisms aren't acceptable, how about "Addresses which are
assigned to a site on a semi-permanent basis", or something like that?

	Noel