Hi, Peter and Paul. Happy New Year! Peter, we updated your contact information per your note below.
Regarding your question about verb tenses: The only changes we could see in the diff files were the updates from "is published" to "was published". We're not sure what "mix of past and present tense" means; please clarify with examples. Post-6000 published RFCs use both "... document is published" and "... document was published", so please let us know if you would like us to change "was" back to "is". The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9609.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9609.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9609.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9609.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9609-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9609-rfcdiff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9609-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9609-lastdiff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9609-lastrfcdiff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9609-xmldiff1.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9609-xmldiff2.html Thank you! RFC Editor/lb > On Jan 2, 2025, at 2:34 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> wrote: > > One note on Peter's approval. (The other two parts are just fine.) > > On Jan 1, 2025, at 09:23, Peter Koch <p...@denic.de> wrote: >> >> 1) The statement under 4.2 Completeness of the Response >> >> At the time this document was published, there are 13 root server >> operators operating a total of more than 1500 root server instances. >> >> is factually incorrect, since we usually acknowledge the fact that there >> are only twelve. I understand where this is coming from given the desire >> to mention 'instances' and haven't checked the archives, so I won't block >> on this one, but I think it's an avoidable mistake. > > Given that Peter says that he "won't block on this one", and that the wording > in question has been in the document since the -00 version, and that the > wording was approved by both the DNSOP WG and the IETF, I would really rather > not have this discussion during AUTH48. Please stet. > > --Paul Hoffman > On Jan 1, 2025, at 9:23 AM, Peter Koch <p...@denic.de> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 11:28:52AM -0800, Lynne Bartholomew wrote: > Dear all, > >> Please note that this document awaits your review and approval. Please >> review via the links below, and let us know whether you approve this >> document for publication in its current form or additional changes are >> needed. > > I have read the latest version and believe it to be OK and ready. > I have two observations and one editorial request: > > 1) The statement under 4.2 Completeness of the Response > > At the time this document was published, there are 13 root server > operators operating a total of more than 1500 root server instances. > > is factually incorrect, since we usually acknowledge the fact that there > are only twelve. I understand where this is coming from given the desire > to mention 'instances' and haven't checked the archives, so I won't block > on this one, but I think it's an avoidable mistake. > > 2) In that same sentence (and a few other occurences) I'd just note that the > mix of past and present tense, very recently introduced, looks very > confusing to me. > Obviously, as the only non-native speaker I'll just take this as a lesson. > > 3) Finally, my postal address is outdated, but I'd like to follow > Paul's and Matt's example and change this: > > OLD: > Peter Koch > DENIC eG > Kaiserstrasse 75-77 > 60329 Frankfurt > Germany > Phone: +49 69 27235 0 > Email: p...@denic.de > > NEW: > Peter Koch > DENIC eG > Email: p...@denic.de > > > Kind regards and a Happy New Year > Peter > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
