Re: section 4.6.2 of review-guidelines

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>]

Hi -

> From: "Harrie Hazewinkel" <harrie@lisanza.net>
> To: "Mreview (E-mail)" <mreview@ops.ietf.org>
> Cc: "Harrie Hazewinkel" <harrie@lisanza.net>
> Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 7:29 AM
> Subject: section 4.6.2 of review-guidelines
...
> The issue is that I sometimes have noticed that in the
> DESCRPTION clause a textual equivalent of for instance the
> DEFVAL-clause, or UNITS is given.
> I personally dislike this, since it for of all MUST go
> into a DEFVAL-clause or UNITS-clause and as a result
> is redundant. Therfore, I beleive we should
> add some text in section 4.6.2 regarding this.
>
> I understand it may be seen as a CLR, but then again
> an editor simply creates himself more work by adding
> the textual information that is/must be part in the
> FORMAL clauses.
...

I think prohibiting redundancy in description clauses is
going too far.  In the case of DEFVAL, it may in fact
not really be redundancy, since the description could
place stronger requirements on that default value than
DEFVAL does.  Likewise, in the case of UNITS, the
description may spell out accuracy / precision details
that could not be inferred from the UNITS clause by
itself.

Randy