Hi Job, Please see notes below.
> On Jul 7, 2025, at 10:24 AM, Job Snijders <j...@sobornost.net> wrote: > > Dear Sandy, > > First of tall, many thanks to you and your colleagues for the editing > services you provide. It is always a joy to see there is a team of > friendly people to who help get things across the finish line! :-) Thanks - we’re happy to help! And thank you for your review and reply. > On Mon, Jul 07, 2025 at 08:51:11AM -0700, Sandy Ginoza wrote: >> Thank you for your review. We have posted the updated files for review: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9829.xml >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9829.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9829.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9829.html > > I've reviewed rfc9829.txt and have a few small nits. Please see below. > >> We will wait to hear further regarding items 2 and 7. > >>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] RFC 9286 defines "fileList" rather than "FileList". We >>>> have updated the document accordingly. Please let us know any >>>> corrections. > > I think one instance was missed: > > OLD: > The hash in the manifest's FileList provides a cryptographic > guarantee on the Certification Authority's intent that this is > the most recent CRL and removes possible replay vectors. > NEW: > The hash in the manifest's fileList provides a cryptographic > guarantee on the Certification Authority's intent that this is > the most recent CRL and removes possible replay vectors. Thanks for noting this. The file has been updated. >>>> In addition, note that the following terminology appears to be used >>>> inconsistently throughout the document. Please review these >>>> occurrences and let us know if/how they may be made consistent. >>>> >>>> Manifest FileList vs manifest's FileList (note that we will >>>> lowercase FileList as noted above.) >>>> >>>> Manifest vs manifest (6487 and 9286 seem to use "manifest" except where >>>> it's part of a specific name.) > > Personally I think "Manifest" would be clearer for the reader, because > lower-case manifest can also be a verb. But, I also understand a > desire for some consistency with 6487/9286. > > If 9286 wouldn't exist, what would've been the recommended approach from > your professional editing perspective? > > There also is another RFC publication coming down the pipeline > (draft-ietf-sidrops-manifest-numbers), this provides an opportunity to > establish a new 'norm' (should we opt to go for Manifest in this > document). In general, we recommend against overcapitalization because it can detract from readability. Regarding “manifest”, when read in context, we do not think readers will be confused. If you disagree and think some instances may be confusing, please let us know. Thanks, RFC Editor/sg > >>>> 7) <!-- [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 reviewed the document and did not spot anything that seems to warrant > changes in relationship to the "Inclusive Language" portion of the > online Style Guide. I agree and appreciate that carefully considering > words often results in more precise language. > > Kind regards, > > Job -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
