WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL60] Forward reference style

Please post discussion of this issue to the mailing list over the 
next two weeks
ending May 18, 2004.  In order to accept this issued, we will need a strong WG
consensus given that this is very late in the process.

Please see http://www.drizzle.org/~aboba/ZEROCONF/issues.html for a list of
current issues and their status.

[LL60]

Description of Issue:		Forward reference style
Submitter Name:                 	Stuart Cheshire
Submitter Email Address:        [email protected]
Date first submitted:          	 04 May 04
Reference:
Comment Type ['t'ech|'e'dit]:	e
Prio ['S' Must|1 should|2 may]:	1
Section:			1.2
Rationale/Explanation:
Lengthy Description:

[Stuart]

>    When ready to begin probing, the host should then wait for a random
>    time interval selected uniformly in the range PROBE_MIN to PROBE_MAX
>    seconds, and should then send NUM_PROBES probe packets, spaced
>    randomly, PROBE_MIN to PROBE_MAX seconds apart.

PROBE_MIN and PROBE_MAX suddenly appear, without mention. Can we give
their values FIRST, so the reader has a clue what we're talking about.

[Erik]

This is standard practice in all RFCs that include constants.  We could
add text to section 1.2 if you think that this is confusing to
implementors.

Personally I feel this goes without saying and adding it would only be a
matter of (questionable) style.

[Stuart]

I disagee.

What is the harm in helping the reader understand the document better?

How can unexplained forward references be good style?


Requested Change:

Add to section 1.2

   Constants are introduced in all capital letters.  Their values are
   given in Section 9.