Hi, James, On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Gould, James <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. That all works for me. Thanks for considering my comments. Spencer
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
