Adrian: Thanks for checking — I think I may have missed your original email for some reason.Sorry about that! I have edited changes relating to your suggestions in my personal copy of the draft, and will submit soon along with a few other changes. Jari > On 7 Oct 2018, at 13.27, Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Jari, > > Thanks for the new version of this document. > > I didn't see a response to my email, but you seem to have cleared up most of the nits I raised. > > Still remaining... > > idnits is still not happy with your use of references > > You should ether move the expansion of 'IETF' to its first use in Section 1, or not bother to expand it at all (in Section 2) > > You still have both "ex officio" and "ex-officio" > > Section 3 s/IETF process/IETF processes/ > > Section 4 > OLD > Fortunately, there was no pressing need to change all the components > at the same time. > NOTE > All components of what? > NEW > Fortunately, there was no pressing need to change all the components > of the IAOC and its dependent organizations at the same time. > END > > Best, > Adrian > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: 22 September 2018 17:34 >> To: 'ietf@xxxxxxxx' >> Cc: 'iasa2-chairs@xxxxxxxx'; 'iasa20@xxxxxxxx'; 'draft-ietf-iasa2-trust- >> rationale@xxxxxxxx'; 'Jon Peterson' >> Subject: RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-rationale-00.txt> (Discussion of the >> IASA 2.0 Changes as They Relate to the IETF Trust) to Informational RFC >> >> Thanks for this document which is in the nature of a "support document" >> for draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-update. I have a few minor comments which are >> mainly nits. >> >> Best, >> Adrian >> >> === >> >> The last call says... >> >> The IESG has received a request from the IETF Administrative Support Activity >> 2 WG (iasa2) to consider the following document: - 'Discussion of the IASA >> 2.0 Changes as They Relate to the IETF Trust' >> <draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-rationale-00.txt> as Informational RFC >> >> But Section 1 says... >> >> This memo is provided only for discussion. There is no intention to >> publish this memo as an RFC. >> >> Maybe delete this paragraph? >> >> ===Nits >> >> idnits says >> >> ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. >> >> ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section >> 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case >> when there are no actions for IANA.) >> >> == Unused Reference: 'RFC7437' is defined on line 213, but no explicit >> reference was found in the text >> >> == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-iasa2-trust-update' is defined on line 227, >> but no explicit reference was found in the text >> >> == Unused Reference: 'RFC5378' is defined on line 232, but no explicit >> reference was found in the text >> >> --- >> >> Shouldn't you change [I-D.hall-iasa2-struct] to [I-D.ietf-iasa2-struct]? >> >> --- >> >> Abstract >> s/IET Administrative/IETF Administrative/ >> >> --- >> >> Section 1 >> separately in draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-update. >> You should include a reference. >> >> --- >> >> Section 2 >> I don't think it is necessary to spell out "Internet Engineering Task >> Force (IETF)" on first use, we probably all know what the IETF is. But >> if you do feel the need, then you should do it on first use in Section >> 1. >> >> --- >> >> Need to decide whether "ex officio" or "ex-officio" >> >> --- >> > Section 3 >> >> s/IETF process/IETF processes/ >> >> --- >> >> Section 4 >> >> s/(but he/(but the/ >> >> --- >> >> Section 5 >> >> OLD >> When new entity for IETF Administration LLC is set up, soon >> thereafter the IAOC will be discontinued. >> NEW >> The IAOC will be discontinued soon after the new IETF Administration >> LLC is set up. >> >> --- >> >> Fortunately, there's no >> pressing need to change all the components at the same time. >> >> All components of what? >> Maybe... >> >> Fortunately, there's no >> pressing need to change all the components of the IAOC and its >> dependent organizations at the same time. >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: IETF-Announce [mailto:ietf-announce-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of >> The >>> IESG >>> Sent: 22 September 2018 01:38 >>> To: IETF-Announce >>> Cc: iasa2-chairs@xxxxxxxx; iasa20@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-iasa2-trust- >>> rationale@xxxxxxxx; Jon Peterson >>> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-rationale-00.txt> (Discussion of the >> IASA >>> 2.0 Changes as They Relate to the IETF Trust) to Informational RFC >>> >>> The IESG has received a request from the IETF Administrative Support Activity >>> 2 WG (iasa2) to consider the following document: - 'Discussion of the IASA >>> 2.0 Changes as They Relate to the IETF Trust' >>> <draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-rationale-00.txt> as Informational RFC >>> >>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final >>> comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the >>> ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2018-10-05. Exceptionally, comments may be >>> sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of >>> the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >
