On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I have one discussion point and a number of small nits... > > ... > > There are just two points in your comments that I want to pursue: > >> 15.2. People serving in the IETF Secretariat and the RFC Editor >> may not volunteer to serve as voting members of the >> nominating committee. >> >> Slight problem with the term "RFC Editor" since this is a single person >> and also a service function. I suspect you mean the latter. > > I do, and I actually had the same problem with it when I wrote it as > you do. So help me, please: How *should* this be put? I don't like, > "and those employed in the RFC Editor function," and I really can't > think of a concise, clean, accurate way to write it down, though we > all (today) know what it means. Text, please, someone. In particular, I believe the there are Editorial Boards that the various fragments of the RFC Editor appoint and consult which should not be excluded. Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx >> o In bullet 16, to correct an erratum, the last paragraph is >> replaced by this: >> >> One possible selection method is described in RFC 3797 [1]. >> >> Perfectly correct, but I don't think this document is the place to >> correct random errata. > > I was (and am) ambivalent here. I did not have this in my first > version. SM did. When we merged the proposals, I thought it was a > good idea to fix that. But you're right that it's rather off topic, > and the right place to do that would be 3777bis, which this decidedly > is NOT. > > I'm inclined to pull it out (having not checked that with SM yet, > though). Does anyone (including SM) think it definitely needs to be > in here? > > Barry