Removing redundancy (was: Demoting rfc2223bis to an informative reference)

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> > 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

And I answer with the time-honored response of the poor frazzled
document editor who wants nothing more than to get this thing done:
Please Send Text!  :-)

Seriously, I looked over Section 3 and (with the arguable exception
of Section 3.8) I did not see that much redundant stuff there.  It
is true that most of the document sections discussed there appear in
all IETF documents, but the bulk of the text is devoted to content
guidelines that apply specifically to MIB modules.

The same cannot be said for the checklist in Appendix A.  That
definitely is redundant.  It is descended from a distillation of
that rules that I made for my own use many years ago.  I found it
handy then to have all that stuff collected in one place, and I
still do.  But if there is consensus to remove it, I am more than
happy to do so.  I can always keep a private copy for my own use :)

//cmh