Subject: RE: Acronyms

From: Ben Hale <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 16:36:45 +0100

-----Original Message-----
From: Vernon Schryver [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 10 September 2001 00:40
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acronyms

> From: Daniel Senie <[email-masked]>

> ...
> Guess I'm not the only one who finds it annoying to read a draft title 
> which is chock full of acronyms, and then an abstract which says the same 
> thing, with the same acronyms... If I can't determine what the author is 
> talking about from the announcement that gets sent to ietf-announce, 
> there's a good chance I won't read the draft and make comments.
>
> I think this should go beyond RFCs, and perhaps be added to the Guidelines

> for Authors of Drafts.

-I disagree.  Becaause there are too many drafts to read, every good
-filter is valuable.  If the author doesn't know enough to use acronyms
-in the title properly, then chances are the draft itself won't be
-readable for additional reasons.  Unreadable drafts and RFCs are less
-likely to be widely implemented.  Even when they are widely implemented,
-life is too short.

-Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

I suppose you think we should drop references out too then

Ben Hale

**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

In accordance with Inmarsat Information Security Policy and Guidelines 
on Computer use, emails sent or received may be monitored. 

Inmarsat Limited 99 City Road London EC1Y 1AX.
Registered in England and Wales No. 3675885
**********************************************************************