Spencer, Thank you for the review and comment. I respond to your feedback below. — JG
James Gould Distinguished Engineer [email protected] 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> On 11/29/17, 7:48 PM, "Spencer Dawkins" <[email protected]> wrote: Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-launchphase/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I wondered about the use of "launch" in the title and Abstract of this document, as possibly not easily parsable for some readers. I'm looking at It is typical for domain registries to operate in special modes during their initial launch to facilitate allocation of domain names, often according to special rules. This document uses the term "launch phase" and the shorter form "launch" to refer to such a period. and wondering if It is typical for domain registries to operate in special modes during their initial launch to facilitate allocation of domain names, s/during their initial launch/as they begin operation/ often according to special rules. This document uses the term "launch phase" and the shorter form "launch" to refer to such a period. might be correct, and easier for some folks to parse (especially since the first paragraph is basically saying 'This document uses "launch phase" and "launch" to refer to "launch"', which doesn't add as much as I hoped :-) Yes, I see that using “launch phase” and “launch” to refer to “launch” is recursive and can be cleaned up as you propose s/during their initial launch/as they begin operation/. If that makes sense, I'll leave you to decide whether a similar substitution might make sense in the Abstract, but do the right thing. I believe the Abstract should stay as is, since it’s important to refer to the word launch and there is no recursive language in the Abstract. _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
