Thanks! Trusting you'll make (have made) the changes, I'm happy with the document. Thanks for the work. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 08 October 2018 15:00 > To: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: IETF list; 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 > > 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. > >
