Hi Rich, On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 9:54 AM Salz, Rich <rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Donald, thanks for the review! > > Section 2.3 says "the AD will schedule an IETF last call (when needed)" but my understanding is that all IETF stream documents now require IETF consensus so there is always an IETF last call. > > I’m going to tap-dance here and say “when needed” is “always”, so that this is an editorial change. And the sentence order is backward, so I changed it to this. > > When satisfied, the AD coordinates the IESG review and IETF last call of the document. > > Does that address the issue? OK, I'm satisfied. > These are editorial improvements, so thanks: > > Section 3.7: "the products these RGs are" -> "the products of these RGs are" > > Section 3.9 says "patent suits" but I think it would be clearer to say "patent lawsuits". > > > I have made the changes in my copy at https://github.com/richsalz/draft-ietf-rfc2028bis Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
