Subject: RFC-Editor and acceptable abbreviation expansions

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 18:11:32 -0500

All

Adrian just pointed this webpage out on another thread,
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt
and I'm a little fascinated by it. I feel I should have known about 
this list, and if that's true: my bad(!), got it now.

I know this is under RFC-Editor control, but I'm not aware of

- how to this page gets acronyms chosen/populated?
- why are certain ones considered valid to have a '*' next
   to them (meaning in IDs and RFCs - those acronyms do not
   need to be expanded ever)?
      [e.g., 'SIP' has a * but 'QoS' doesn't have a *, huh?!]
and
- what to do about those acronyms I know of that (I'm surprised)
   are not on the list at all?

This isn't a dig at the RFC-Ed, but I'm wondering what the right 
venue is to have a meaningful discussion about this acronym list?

I know I might be shedding light on something someone might not want 
open for public debate (sorry - if that's the case - but I've only 
copied the wgchairs on this message, so it's not that bad).

Should I

#1 - communicate directly with the RFC-Ed myself with no other
      recipients?
      (which seems like many could duplicate themselves)

#2 - communicate directly with the RFC-Ed myself with some small
      set of recipients?
      (not as inefficient, but still no mailing list)

#3 - communicate directly with the RFC-Ed myself with the IETF
      main list copied?
      (which could get crazy, I know)

#4 - communicate directly with the RFC-Ed myself with only the
      wgchairs list copied?
      (which is what I'm doing now - cuz, in theory, we're more
       experienced/controlled than on an open list)

#5 - another choice?

In my view, the RFC-Ed controls how they want to be contacted about 
this (or left alone), so if they say #1 is how, that trumps everyone 
else's opinion.

YMMV

James

At 02:22 PM 10/28/2010, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>Hi,
>
>There is a list of acronyms at
>http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt
>
>Those marked with a star do not need to be expanded in any new I-D or RFC.
>
>Those not marked need to be expanded on first use in the Abstract and in the
>main body of the text (the Abstract is supposed to be free-standing).
>
>Over time, the RFC Editor adds stars. I suspect they are susceptible to
>lobbying.
>
>Cheers,
>Adrian

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:17:12 -0700

Hi,

On 10/28/2010 4:11 PM, James M. Polk wrote:
> and I'm a little fascinated by it. I feel I should have known about this
> list, and if that's true: my bad(!), got it now.
>
...

> [e.g., 'SIP' has a * but 'QoS' doesn't have a *, huh?!]

 From the list heading text:

Some abbreviations are so well known that expansion is probably
unnecessary.
...
In the following list of
abbreviations, those that are usually (but not necessarily) treated as
"well known" are marked with asterisks.

...
> (which seems like many could duplicate themselves)

If it's just about updating the list or clarifying the instructions, 
that seems the best course.

Joe

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 18:39:27 -0500

>that seems the best course.

"updating the list or clarifying the instructions" is all I was 
considering here.

Would it be inappropriate to - in our spare time - have a discussion 
about some items on this list on the wgchairs list (with or without 
the RFC-Ed)?

Or do you think just communicating directly with the RFC-Ed the best course?

(I'm just trying to make sure of what your advising)

James

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:47:10 -0700

On 10/28/2010 4:39 PM, James M. Polk wrote:
...
> about some items on this list on the wgchairs list (with or without the
> RFC-Ed)?
>

I'd say start with RFC-Ed. They'll help suggest if there's something 
more general to discuss.

Joe

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:09:01 -0700

This should be discussed with others interested in the list, not just "sent to the RFC Editor". <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest> is the official list for such a discussion. There are many folks on that list who care very much about how things change between the I-D approved by the stream and the RFC that is published.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 19:33:41 -0500

At 07:09 PM 10/28/2010, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>This should be discussed with others interested in the list, not 
>just "sent to the RFC Editor". 
><https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest> is the 
>official list for such a discussion. There are many folks on that 
>list who care very much about how things change between the I-D 
>approved by the stream and the RFC that is published.

thanks Paul

I'll join that list and start a discussion

James

---

From: RFC Editor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:46:33 -0700

Hi James,

The list available in abbrev.expansion.txt is not exhaustive.  If you
have a list of abbreviations that should be added, please send them to
us.  We review and update the list periodically.  However, further
discussion seems necessary to determine whether an abbreviation is
considered well known (i.e., does not need expansion).  The original
intent was that only abbreviations that were well understood across
the working groups and areas should be marked with asterisks.

Thanks,
Sandy

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 04:17:12PM -0700, Joe Touch wrote:
> If it's just about updating the list or clarifying the instructions, that 
> seems the best course.
>
> Joe

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:43:55 -0500

Sandy

Thanks for the reply. This is exactly what I was looking for.

I have joined the rfc-interest list (based on Paul Hoffman's 
suggestion). Is that the right list to have such discussions, or is 
involving the WG chairs list preferable (or some other list)?

Please let me know

James