RE: Changes in -07 of model document

["Mark Day" <markday@cisco.com>]

I think I agree with almost all of Fred's comments on the -07 model
document, and I can make the changes pretty easily.  But there's one that's
a challenge.

>     Abstract
>
>        Content internetworking (CDI) is the technology for interconnecting
>
> FD> In the intro, you explain the acronym.  I think you should either
> FD> explain where the "D" comes from here as well, or preferably,
> FD> simply remove the acronym in the abstract.

This is the comment that I find most difficult to address.  If I recall
correctly, we have decided that our editorial practice going forward is to
use the term "content internetworking" and the acronym "CDI", despite the
fact that CDI is not an obvious rendering of the term. I certainly could
take CDI out of the abstract, but it would still be in the title -- and
removing CDI from both title and abstract would dramatically reduce the
likelihood of finding the document if someone is searching for CDI. We
definitely need a shorthand term for our work, and CDI seems to work
reasonably well.  We could change it again (sigh) but do we really want to?

Reintroducing the whole "distribution" explanation into the abstract seems
equally unpalatable.  We'd like the abstract to be focused on the essence of
the document, not highlighting one of our quirks.

I think our real options are either
(a) brazen it out, with the current wording.  Just act as though there's
nothing wrong.
(b) acknowledge the weirdness, but only briefly.  We could do the following:

"Content internetworking (CDI [sic]) is the technology for..."

Personally, I don't think that (b) is any better than (a), and might
actually be worse.  So I'd be in favor of leaving the abstract alone. But
maybe someone else has a better solution.

--Mark