Hi Adrian, Thanks for the review and feedback. I think that most of your comments can be dealt with by Lars, but that your first comment is perhaps aimed at me, and please see my separate email that I just sent regarding the SAA term and unprofessional. Hence inline ... > -----Original Message----- > From: last-call <last-call-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: 30 October 2021 14:04 > To: last-call@xxxxxxxx > Subject: [Last-Call] IETF last call review of draft-eggert-bcp45bis-06.txt > > Hi, > > I did a quick review of this draft since it is in IETF last call. > > --- > > The shepherd write-up claims reasonable consensus from the interested > community, but this seems to be based on the discussions on the > GenDispatch mailing list. Was the consensus of the "interested > community" actually looked for before this IETF last call? My reading of the shepherd template was that this is judging the consensus of the community that was discussing the document, i.e., my assumption is that the individuals who are interested in such discussions frequent the GenDispatch mailing list and have had ample time to comment on what is meant to be a small process update document. Note, my interpretation of this document is that it is trying to update BCP 45 to accurately describe how the ietf@ mailing list currently operates rather than specifying any new behaviour or requirements on participants. Does that answer your question? Regards, Rob // Shepherding AD > > --- > > I see you have included the pre-November 10, 2008 copyright boilerplate. > Did you attempt to contact the author of RFC 3005 to ensure that this > was no longer an issue? > > --- > > Please remove the "Note to Readers" at the top of the document. It no > longer applies. > > --- > > 2. > > within the area of any working group, area or other established list. > > This would read better as > > within the scope of any working group, area, or other established > list. > > --- > > 2. > > When discussions are started on the IETF discussion list for which > such venues do exist, they should be continued there as soon as this > is pointed out. > > The use of "there" is mildly ambiguous. Try... > > When discussions are started on the IETF discussion list for which > such a venue does exist, they should be continued at that other venue > as soon as this is pointed out. > > --- > > 2. > > s/and only announce/and announce/ > > --- > > 2. > > I, too, am uneasy about the use of the term "unprofessional commentary". > > I think that you should simply point back at the references you have in > the second paragraph of Section 1. That gives you wider scope than > "commentary", and it saves you from the debate about "unprofessional" > since "professional" is only mentioned one (in passing) in RFC 7154. > > --- > > 3. > > Please remove all mention of "Sergeant at Arms". We are not a quasi > military organisation, we have no Internet Police, and the list > moderators do not carry weapons. > > Please rewrite this whole section in terms of "list moderators". This > looks like a relatively straightforward piece of editing, but since it > is to the core of the document, I think the draft should be presented > for further review after the changes. > > (I appreciate that this document is described in the shepherd write-up > as intended to set out how the list is *currently* managed and to not > make substantial changes. That may have been the original intention, but > it is clear from the changes applied since RFC 3005 that the scope has > gone beyond this. It is, therefore, appropriate to also fix this use of > inappropriate terminology.) > > --- > > Appendix A > > The acknowledgements section should be an unnumbered appendix. > > --- > > Appendix B > > Such an appendix is usually removed prior to publication. Please add > a note telling the RPC to do that. > > However, the changes from 3005 to the final version of this document > should be summarised in a section of this document (appendix or main > section). > > --- > > You reference [IETF-AHP] as authored by the IETF. I think that should be > "IESG" as the policy was not a consensus document (for all that we agree > with it). Your alternative would be to refer to RFC 7776. > > > Thanks for the work, > Adrian > > -- > last-call mailing list > last-call@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
