Hi Christer, Thank you for your review.
On 12/9/14, 12:50 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> General:
> ----------
>
> Q_1:
>
> In Section 2, the IETF reply text sometimes uses "we" to refer to IETF.
> I think it would be good to say "IETF".
>
> For example:
>
> "We consider .ARPA part" -> "IETF considers .ARPA part"
> "...few cases where we may further..." -> "...few cases where
> IETF may further..."
>
> Etc.
>
> This may not be seen needed when reading the draft, but it will be
> useful if e.g. the IETF reply text is quoted elsewhere.
I have done this where it has been possible to do without leaving an
awkward structure. If the text is taken out of that context, it is
standard practice (at least in America) to use brackets to replace a
pronoun, such as [The IETF] for "we".
>
>
> Abstract:
> ------------
>
> Q_2:
>
> I think it would be good if the Abstract also would indicate that the
> LS was primarily sent to ICANN. Currently the text only says that an LS was
> sent somewhere, and that IETF was invited to reply.
I propose the following abstract to address your concern:
The U.S. NTIA has solicited a request from ICANN to propose
how the NTIA should end its oversight of the IANA functions.
After broad consultations, ICANN has in turn created the IANA
Stewardship Transition Coordination Group. That group
solicited proposals for thre three major IANA functions:
names, numbers, and protocol parameters. This document
contains the IETF response to that solicitation for protocol
parameters. It is meant to be included in an aggregate
response to the NTIA alongside those for names and numbering
resources that are being developed by their respective
operational communities.
>
> Q_3:
>
> The last sentence of the Abstract says: "The IETF community is invited
> to comment and propose changes to this document."
>
> It is unclear what "this document" refers to. If it refers to the
> aggregate proposal mentioned earlier, I think that should be more clear.
This sentence will be removed, as the invitation will have expired.
>
>
> Introduction:
> ---------------
>
> Q_4:
>
> In the 1st paragraph, I think it would be good to indicate that IETF
> was invited to reply to the LS.
While we were expected to reply, I do not know that we received an
actual specific invitation. I am happy to be told otherwise.
Regards,
Eliot
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
