On 1/21/16, 10:13 AM, "Chris Bowers" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Chris: Hi! Pierre and Stewart, Thanks for the feedback. I will remove the comparison table and text from the next revision. Alvaro, Would you like a new revision without the comparison table sometime before the IESG telechat on 2/4, or should I wait to incorporate this change with other potential changes requested by the IESG? Yes, please post a new revision. We need it by the end of next week (Jan/29). I haven't seen other IETF LC comments yet, but you may want to wait just in case (and still publish an update by the 29th). I will remove the unused reference to I-D.ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability. With respect to the use of "we", "we" generally refers to the authors. In general, we use "we" to explain why we (the authors) are explaining things in a particular order. I did a quick search for the usage of "we note" and "we consider" in RFCs, and it seems fairly common to use we in this way. The usages of "we" could be changed to passive or imperative form, but in many cases I think it would make the text more awkward. Yeah, as I said, it is a style nit. Given that this is a Standards Track document (ie. A rough consensus document), it is a little awkward that "we" refers to the authors and not the WG, or the IETF.. Again, just a style nit.. Thanks! Alvaro.
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
