This looks good to me. Thanks and Regards,
Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Barry Leiba > Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 6:26 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Cc: General Area Review Team; draft-leiba-netmod-regpolicy- > [email protected] > Subject: Re: Gen-ART Review of draft-leiba-netmod-regpolicy-update-01 > > > I am fine with this approach but this is not what the text of the > 'motivational' part of the Internet-Draft says. Currently there is an a- > synchronism between the text that explains what the I-D tries to do and the > action it recommends. > > OK, well, you know I'm always in favour of more clarity. So how does this > sound?: > > OLD > This document changes that > registration policy to "IETF Review", which also allows registrations > from certain well reviewed Experimental RFCs. > > NEW > This document changes that > registration policy to "IETF Review", which also allows registrations > from certain well reviewed Experimental RFCs, or, for example, > corrections to registry errors from Informational RFCs, with IETF > review and consensus. > > END > > Barry _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
