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

>While it's not a big deal, the statement "This is standard practice in all
>RFCs that include constants" can be disproven by counterexample; RFC 3315
>defines all of the symbolic constants in an early section before any of
>those constants are referenced in the specification.
>
>I suggest simply moving section 9 so that it appears before any of the
>defined symbolic constants are first referenced.

Thank you Ralph. Hopefully my proposed changes for LL53 address this.

Robert Elz wrote:

>RFCs are for implementors, not for people learning.   Implementors, if
>not necessarily experts, should at least be competent.  If someone wants
>to publish a book "IPv4 link local addresses for morons" (or whatever)
>then they can do it in a way which manes it easy for beginners to
>learn the protocol.   The RFC doesn't need to do that.

I cannot fathom this point of view.

The first time someone reads any document, including an RFC, they're 
learning what the document says.

What possible reason would we have to NOT make an RFC as clear and 
understandable as possible?

Stuart Cheshire <[email protected]>
 * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Computer, Inc.
 * www.stuartcheshire.org