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

On 5/4/04 6:05 PM, "Erik Guttman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>    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?

I will say that at least in American English, suddenly using undefined terms
will get you fussed at by almost anyone.

Using terms without defining them first is a great way to cause problems.
Since this is an engineering document of sorts, document - specific terms
should be properly defined as to their usage in the document prior to that
usage.

john

-- 
"C++? That is for children. A Klingon Warrior  uses only machine code, keyed
in on the front panel switches in raw binary."