Hi Elwyn, Thank you again for the review. Please see below.
> Summary: > Almost ready for the IESG. This is my second review of the document. > > I suggested in the previous review that it might make life easier, > particularly > if an appeal was ever entered, if the document didn't use the RFC 5226 > Designated > Expert mechanism but defined the role separately. This hasn't happened but > the > distinction is now clearer. To make it quite clear I would be inclined to > add > 'except as regards appeals against decisions of the Designated Expert > (see Section 5)' after [RFC5226] in the definition of TZ Coordinator in > Section 2. I've adopted your above suggested wording. > Otherwise there are a couple of editorial nits. > > . > Nits/Editorial: > s3: s/policy policy/policy/ (repeated word) Corrected. > s8, first para: s/filling/filling the role/ (maybe 'post') This text changed based on another review. > s8, last para: s/TZ Coordinators/TZ Coordinator/ Corrected. > s10: s/Elwin/Elwyn/ (thanks for the ack!) Corrected and apologies! I hate when that happens to me! Eliot _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
