Hi Alice and Adrian, This is also my approval. Thanks Adrian and Alice.
B.R. Chaode -----邮件原件----- 发件人: Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> 发送时间: 2026年2月27日 19:23 收件人: 'Alice Russo' <[email protected]> 抄送: Qin Wu <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 'Mahesh Jethanandani' <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; yuchaode <[email protected]>; 'auth48archive' <[email protected]>; 'RFC Editor' <[email protected]> 主题: RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9940 <draft-ietf-nmop-terminology-23> for your review Hi Alice, I just read the diff. All is good, but what a lot of work you guys had to do. I feel embarrassed. Anyway - this is my approval. OTHER AUTHORS! Your Auth48 approval is needed, too. Cheers, Adrian -----Original Message----- From: Alice Russo <[email protected]> Sent: 26 February 2026 22:58 To: Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> Cc: Qin Wu <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; yuchaode <[email protected]>; auth48archive <[email protected]>; RFC Editor <[email protected]> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9940 <draft-ietf-nmop-terminology-23> for your review Adrian, Thank you for your reply. Re: > [AF2] Although it is more of an edit, and recognising that not all people > think Foos are lovely, I would prefer to go to full sentences. We updated Section 3.2 to complete sentences; if you'd like 3.3 updated as well, please send along the updates. The revised files are here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9940.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9940.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9940.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9940.xml This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9940-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9940-rfcdiff.html (side by side) This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9940-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9940-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) This diff file shows only the changes since the last posted version: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9940-lastrfcdiff.html We will wait to hear from you again and from your coauthors before continuing the publication process. This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9940 Thank you. Alice Russo RFC Production Center > On Feb 24, 2026, at 10:40 PM, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks Alice and Qin, > > Snipping down to point 6. > >> 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2: For parallelism in the list provided in >> this section, we made several updates to the definition paragraphs >> (the top-level items). For consistency of style, we went with >> sentence fragments instead of complete sentences. Please review, and >> let us know any updates. --> >> >> [AF] Well, hmmm, you have created some non-sentences, I think. For example: >> In the context of Network Monitoring, the variation in the Value of >> a Characteristic associated with a Resource. >> Do we not prefer to write in complete sentences? >> But, I do note that the original was culpable of this as well, so hey-ho? > > [AR] hey-ho, indeed. Happy to revert to original or update each to a complete > sentence (which leads to some repetition, e.g., "Foo: A Foo is a lovely > thing."). Please let us know your preference. > > [AF2] Although it is more of an edit, and recognising that not all people > think Foos are lovely, I would prefer to go to full sentences. > >> I checked the semantics, and I don't think this change is a problem except: >> >> "Detect". Retaining the sub-bullet would be preferred because it is a >> significant difference from the main definition. I'd be happy to s/Hence >> also/Also/ in the sub-bullet if that helps. >> > [AR] updated accordingly. > >> "Occurrence" I'll be led by you on fine-grain/fine-grained. I thought: >> This piece of sand is a fine-grain particle. >> This is a handful of fine-grained particles. > > [AR] If the intended meaning is 'concerned with or using small details' [1], > the one instance in this document seems fine: > > * An Occurrence may be an aggregation or abstraction of multiple > fine-grained Events or Changes. > > [1] This definition is from > https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fine-grained because > the Merriam-Webster definition is not useful ("characterized by comparatively > fine graininess"). > > [AF2] Does Merriam-Webster have a definition for "useless" and "ROFL"? > Your change is good. :) > > Cheers, > Adrian > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
