--On Monday, 10 November, 2008 11:19 -0500 Russ Housley
<housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> John:
>
> In the previous note from me, I responded to you and Jari on
> your main points. In this note, I am responding to your
> editorial points.
>
>> Textual nit-picking
>>
>> * The second full paragraph of the Introduction ("The IETF is
>> responsible..."), second sentence, should read "..., and any
>> other IETF-generated Informational or Experimental documents".
>> Otherwise, one may suck most of the Independent Submission
>...
> I agree. The revised sentence reads: "These RFCs, and any
> other IETF-generated Informational or Experimental documents,
> are reviewed by appropriate IETF bodies and published as part
> of the IETF Stream."
Excellent
>> * The document is confused about tense and mood of particular
>> words and the general tone of the language used. For
>> example, Section 1 Paragraph 5, last sentence, says "...was a
>> considerable drain... this is not" and should probably should
>> have been "...this was not". As another example, consider
>...
> Agree: s/this is not/this was not/
>
> To make them all parallel in structure, the first numbered
> item in section 3 becomes: "1. The IESG finds no conflict
> between this document and IETF work."
Much better.
> In RFC 3932, these numbered items (except the first one, which
> is the same until the modification above) begin "The IESG
> thinks" During pre-Last-Call-review, I received feedback that
> "The IESG finds" was a better. Now, you propose "The IESG
> believes". I do believe that the current wording is better
> than the original. I'm willing to change it to something else
> if there is consensus to do so. What do other reviewers
> find/think/believe/prefer?
I find (sic) that "find" is better than "thinks", but probably
prefer "believes". "has concluded" would be even better, IMO.
>> * The assertion in paragraph 7 of Section 1 is not correct.
>> While it probably was the case in the years _immediately_
>> preceding 2006, there was a period of several years in which
>> the IAB performed a (sometimes pro-forma) review of IRTF
>...
> I suggest the following change to the first sentence in that
> paragraph: "Prior to 2006, documents from the IRTF were
> treated as either IAB submissions or individual submissions
> via the RFC Editor."
That would be correct. Thanks.
>> * If you really want to right to claim "harmful to the
>> Internet", then Section 6 is incomplete, because some of the
>> classes of harm that you might be trying to prevent involve
>> security.
>
> Are you talking about this paragraph?
>
> If the IESG does not find any conflict between an
> independent
> submission and IETF work, then the RFC Editor is
> responsible for
> judging the technical merits for that submission, including
> considerations of possible harm to the Internet. If the
> IESG does
> not find any conflict between an IRTF submission and IETF
> work, then
> the IRSG is responsible for judging the technical merits
> for that
> submission, including considerations of possible harm to
> the
> Internet.
Not really. Most of the really problematic text about "harm"
has been removed, for which I thank you. But, just as we have
(correctly, IMO) been quite insistent that publication of a
document cannot infringe anyone's (non-copyright) IPR, it is
hard for me to believe that the publication of a document can
"harm" the Internet or even "harm" the IETF's standards process.
Cause some operational difficulties if implemented, yes. Cause
some confusion if published out of sequence with other work,
probably. But I think this document would be enhanced if all
language about "harm" resulting from publication (even the
above) were removed and replaced by language describing what
sort of damage is being anticipated or prevented.
>...
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf