Maybe
"The contributor chetti provided an analysis that clarified the ABNF productions that implicitly reference other documents."
If one really wants to "fix" it. I kind of like it as-is now that I understand it, but I think it might keep coming up, as evidenced here.
Also fine with leaving it to the RFC Editor.
thanks,
Rob
On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 1:58 PM Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--JohnOn Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 4:34 PM John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:Tim,
Thanks.
Clarification on the Nit inline below.
--On Friday, October 25, 2024 11:51 -0700 Tim Wicinski via
Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Reviewer: Tim Wicinski
> Review result: Ready
>
> All
>
> I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational
> directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being
> processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent
> of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments
> that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews
> during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should
> treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
>
> This document is the underlying specification in electronic mail
> and its movement across the internet.
>
> I actually reviewed this document during the working group last
> call process, and worked through several comments John L and John K
> addressed then.
>
> I have been also following the DNSDIR review thread, and feel
> confident the are addressing those issues to me satisfaction.
>
> One Nit:
>
> The acknowledgement section has this partial paragraph - some bad
> xml?
>
> chetti contributed an analysis that clarified the ABNF
> productions that implicitly reference other documents.
:-)
I wanted to keep the acknowledgment blocks/paragraphs in more or less
chronological order. That analysis arrived before the WG got started
and hence was not a contribution to the WG that would have been
covered in the subsequent paragraph. However, the only information
I had (or have) about the contributor is that name, spelled that way
(I have vague memories of even asking but that was 4 1/2 years ago).
I didn't want to guess about, or override, a preferred name or
preferred case any more than I would want to do either with a
preferred gender. So I tentatively wrote the paragraph and then
consulted the RFC Editor, getting a reply in early May 2020 (again,
before the WG was chartered). I was told their preference matched my
guess and to write it that way.
Does that constitute nit-picking a Nit?
So thanks for the obviously very careful reading and for noticing
because it, indeed, looks odd but it is actually as intended.
I went back down the rabbit hole and I now remember you and Rob Sayre discussing this for -24.I think it jumps out as starting with a lowercase character and looking like a fragment.Leave it for the RFC editor also works for methankstimthanks again,
john
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
