Hi Colin,
We have updated the document as discussed below, except the update to
[ANTI-HARASSMENT]. How do you feel about A) just referencing the IETF
anti-harassment statement or B) be splitting it into two references. The
current suggestion feels overloaded.
Perhaps A:
Current:
Participants must follow
the IETF anti-harassment policy, which also applies to the IRTF
[ANTI-HARASSMENT].
With an updated reference:
[ANTI-HARASSMENT]
IETF, “IETF Anti-Harassment Policy",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-ietf-anti-harassment-policy-20131103/>.
Perhaps B:
Participants must follow
the IETF anti-harassment policy [ANTI-HARASSMENT], which also applies to the
IRTF
[IRTF-ANTI-HARASSMENT].
Or
Participants must follow the IETF anti-harassment policy,
which was adopted by the IRTF (see [IETF-ANTI-HARASSMENT]
and [IRTF-ANTI-HARASSMENT]).
With 2 references:
[ANTI-HARASSMENT]
IETF, “IETF Anti-Harassment Policy”, November 2013,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-ietf-anti-harassment-policy-20131103/>.
[IRTF-ANTI-HARASSMENT]
IRTF, "Anti-Harassment Policy”,
<https://www.irtf.org/policies/#anti-harassment>.
The other updates have been incorporated as described below. The current files
are available here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9775.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9775.txt
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9775.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9775.html
AUTH48 diffs:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9775-auth48diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9775-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Comprehensive diffs:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9775-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9775-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Thanks,
RFC Editor/sg
> On Mar 17, 2025, at 3:50 AM, Colin Perkins <c...@csperkins.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thank you for expediting this! I’ve reviewed the document and it looks good.
> Responses inline.
>
> On 16 Mar 2025, at 23:34, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
>
> Authors,
>
> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary)
> the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>
> • <!-- [rfced] We note that the document action includes the following:
>
> This document is the product of the IRTF Open Meeting RAG (irtfopen).
>
> And we see that the markdown originally used the following:
> workgroup: "IRTF"
> consensus: true
>
> We believe the Status of This Memo should reflect that it is a product of
> the IRTF. While the consensus bit was set to true in the markdown, we have
> removed it from the XML file to get what we think is the right Status of
> This Memo. It currently matches option 21 (IRTF Informational (No RG))
> from the list of possible Status of This Memos
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/status-memos.txt .
>
> Please review and let us know if changes are needed.
> -->
>
> The selected boilerplate looks correct to me.
>
> • <!-- [rfced] Section 2.1 of RFC 5743 indicates that the level of
> review
>
> should be indicated early in the document.
>
> RFC 5743:
> o The breadth of review the document has received must also be
> noted. For example, was this document read by all the active
> research group members, only three people, or folks who are not
> "in" the RG but are expert in the area?
>
> Do you want to add something more to the following text that appears in the
> Introduction?
>
> This document represents the consensus of the Internet Research
> Steering Group (IRSG). It is not an IETF product and is not a
> standard.
> -->
>
> We could maybe say: “This document was developed by the Internet Research
> Steering Group (IRSG) with broad consultation and review from the IRTF
> community. It represents the consensus of…”?
>
> • <!-- [rfced] For readability, please consider whether this sentence
> can be clarified.
>
> Original:
> Harassment or disruption due to the posting of messages that are
> inflammatory, abusive, or otherwise inappropriate, or the repeated
> posting of off-topic material, on these lists and discussion forums
> will not be tolerated.
>
> Perhaps A:
> Harassment or disruption on these lists and discussion forums
> due to posting messages that are
> inflammatory, abusive, or otherwise inappropriate, or due to the
> repeated posting of off-topic material, will not be tolerated.
>
> Perhaps B:
> The following will not be tolerated on these
> lists and discussion forums:
>
> • Harassment
> • Disruption
> • Inflammatory, abusive, or otherwise inappropriate
> • Repeated posting of off-topic material
> -->
>
> I’d prefer option A here, and agree it reads better than the original.
>
> • <!-- [rfced] They use of "they" and "their" is somewhat confusing in
>
> this sentence. Please review and consider whether the updates clarify the
> intended meaning.
>
> Original:
> These documents are
> encouraged as an important part of the process of disseminating
> research ideas and ensuring that they work in the Internet at large,
> but authors must ensure that prior work on which they are based,
> including their own prior work, is appropriately cited and
> acknowledged, and that such documents respect the copyright of prior
> work and are written with the permission of any co-authors.
>
> Perhaps:
> These documents are
> encouraged as an important part of the process of disseminating
> research ideas and ensuring that they work in the Internet at large.
> However, Authors must ensure that prior work on which current work is
> based, including the authors' own prior work, is appropriately cited
> and acknowledged, and that such documents respect the copyright of
> prior work and are written with the permission of any coauthors.
> -->
>
> Better, but maybe not quite there yet. How about:
>
> These documents are
> encouraged as an important part of the process of disseminating
> research ideas and ensuring that they work in the Internet at large.
> Authors must ensure that prior work, including their own prior work,
> is appropriately cited and acknowledged, and that new documents
> respect the copyright of prior work and are written with the
> permission of any coauthors.
>
> • <!-- [rfced] We wonder whether the mention of English here should be
>
> generalized so it applies to communication challenges related to all
> languages. Focussing on English as the de facto language makes sense in the
> following section.
>
> Original:
> Participants should avoid the use of slang and unnecessary jargon in
> both spoken and written communication. When faced with English that
> may be difficult to understand, IRTF participants should make a
> sincere effort to understand each other and to engage in conversation
> to clarify when necessary.
>
> Perhaps:
> Participants should avoid the use of slang and unnecessary jargon in
> both spoken and written communication. When
> communication difficulties arise, IRTF participants should make a
> sincere effort to understand each other and to engage in conversation
> to clarify when necessary.
> -->
>
> Yes, that’s better.
>
> • <!-- [rfced] As we believe the goal of this reference is to note the
>
> IRTF's adoption of the IETF anti-harassment policy, we have updated the
> reference title to match what appears on the IRTF page. Please let us know
> if you prefer to refer to the IETF's anti-harassment policy.
>
> Original:
> [ANTI-HARASSMENT]
> "IETF Anti-Harassment Policy", November 2013,
> https://irtf.org/policies/#anti-harassment .
>
> Current:
> [ANTI-HARASSMENT]
> IRTF, "Anti-Harassment Policy",
> https://irtf.org/policies/#anti-harassment .
> -->
>
> Perhaps:
>
> [ANTI-HARASSMENT]
> "IETF Anti-Harassment Policy", November 2013,
> as also adopted by the IRTF,
> <https://irtf.org/policies/#anti-harassment> .
>
> • <!-- [rfced] The NIST DOI returns "WITHDRAWN_Guidance for NIST staff
> on
>
> using inclusive language in documentary standards." Would you like to
> include the web.archive.org link the IESG now points to from the IESG
> Statement on inclusive language?
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20250203031433/https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2021/NIST.IR.8366.pdf
>
> Original:
> [NISTIR8366]
> National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
> "Guidance for NIST Staff on Using Inclusive Language in
> Documentary Standards", Interagency or Internal Report
> 8366 (NISTIR 8366), DOI 10.6028/NIST.IR.8366, April 2021,
> https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8366 .
>
> Suggested:
> [NISTIR8366]
> National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Guidance
> for NIST Staff on Using Inclusive Language in Documentary
> Standards", Interagency or Internal Report 8366 (NISTIR
> 8366), DOI 10.6028/NIST.IR.8366, April 2021, <https://web.
> archive.org/web/20250203031433/https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/
> nistpubs/ir/2021/NIST.IR.8366.pdf>.
> -->
>
> Yes, please update the link to point to web.archive.org
>
> • <!-- [rfced] We have lowercased "research group" and "research group
>
> chair" because they were not referring to specific research groups. Please
> review and let us now if any updates are desired.
> -->
>
> That’s fine.
>
> • <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
>
> online Style Guide
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language
> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature
> typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers.
>
> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should
> still be reviewed as a best practice.
> -->
>
> I don’t think any further changes are needed.
>
> Thanks!
> Colin
>
--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
