Thanks for the review Qin, I struggled a little with your second suggestion. I ultimately settled on +Retaining mailing lists as the primary venue for discussion of substantive +matters ensures that this mode - along with the document management mode - is +most compatible with existing work practices for Working Groups. I chose 'future' rather than 'v2'. On Sun, Feb 23, 2020, at 18:21, Qin Wu via Datatracker wrote: > Reviewer: Qin Wu > Review result: Has Nits > > I have reviewed this document as part of the Ops area directorate's ongoing > effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These > comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Ops area directors. > Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other > last call comments. > > Good work, this draft provides working group github usage guidance and document > best practice that can be referenced by all IETF working groups. A few nits > that need to be fixed before moving forward: 1. Section 5.2,3rd paragraph: The > word "err" is a little bit weird to me. s/err more toward/lean more toward 2. > Section 5.2 5th paragraph: "As mailing lists remain the primary venue for > discussion of > substantive matters, this mode and the document management only modes > remain those most compatible with existing work practices for Working > Groups." > I feel the second half sentence is disconnected and not clear. should this be > changed into "...only modes which remain those most" …? 3.Section 5.4.2,last > paragraph The label “v2” has some ambiguity, since each draft may have already > made multiple revisions. The latest version may not start with v1. In addition, > should the decision label or component label be registered in IANA? > > > > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
