Re: Demoting rfc2223bis to an informative reference

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

Hi -

> From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
> To: "Mreview (E-mail)" <mreview@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 3:43 AM
> Subject: Demoting rfc2223bis to an informative reference
...
> I could replace [RFC2223bis] by http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
> since they say the same thing about abstracts.  This is the proposed text:
>
>    2.) Abstract -- verify that the abstract does not contain references,
>    that it does not have a section number, and that its content follows
>    the guidelines in http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt.
...

What bothers me about both the current and the proposed text is
that it repeats requirements already spelled out in detail in other
documents.  It's bad enough that we already have significant redundancy
between 2223bis, id-nits, and id-guidelines.   Adding quadruple
redundancy doesn't seem to me to be a step forward, and I see
little evidence in the internet-drafts that I've reviewed that the
current level of redundancy has led authors to be any more
careful about following basic i-d formatting rules, checking for
spelling errors, or expanding abbreviations on first use.

My proposed change would be to eliminate the redundant material,
replacing it with a single note that MIBs submitted in the form of
internet drafts need to conform to the rules for submitting internet
drafts, and an information reference, regrettably, to 1id-guidelines.txt

Randy