FYI...

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Ran Atkinson <[email protected]>
> Date: October 29, 2010 9:54:48 AM PDT
> To: Tony Li <[email protected]>
> Cc: Randall Atkinson <[email protected]>
> Subject: Design Goals editorial feedback
> 
> Hi,
> 
>  I support publishing the Design Goals document.
> All of the feedback below is editorial, mostly about
> readability.  Feedback is organised using the document
> section numbering.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ran
> 
> 
> 1.2  Confusion
>       If "may" in the last sentence is referring to "permission",
>       then it is fine.  If the intended meaning refers to "possibility",
>       then please edit s/may/might/
> 
> 3.4  Readability and page layout would be improved
>     if the sundry (1) through (4) were indented and
>     each new number were the first non-whitespace on its line.
> 
> 3.6  Reference
>       Please cite IEN-1 at the end of the first sentence.
>       I believe that is the earliest document saying this.
>       If an earlier reference is available, then one might
>       substitute that for the IEN-1 reference.
> 
> 
>       [IEN-1]  C.J. Bennett, S.W. Edge, & A.J. Hinchley,
>                "Issues in the Interconnection of Datagram
>                Networks", Internet Experiment Note (IEN) 1,
>                INDRA Note 637, PSPWN 76, University College
>                London, 29 July 1977.
>               <http://www.postel.org/ien/pdf/ien001.pdf>
> 
> 
> 3.7 The tense of the verb is incorrect.  As this is a
>    hypothetical case (the if clause), the tense should
>    be the subjunctive:
> 
>       s/if a tunneling mechanism is tunnelling was used/
>        /if a tunneling mechanism is tunnelling were used/
> 
> 3.7  Suggest eliminating one pronoun in the interest of
>     clarity:
> 
>       s/part of a solution, it/part of a solution, tunnelling/
> 
> 3.7  Aside:
>       In English, the spelling would be "tunneling".
>       I can't claim to know the correct American spelling,
>       as I've always used English spelling.
> 
> 3.10  Aside:
>       Would it be OK if we said "capabilities" instead of
>       "functionality" ?
> 
> EOF
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

Reply via email to