Hi, > On 3. Dec 2024, at 09:17, Gorry Fairhurst <go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote: > > On 02/12/2024 18:26, Megan Ferguson wrote: >> Hi Michael and Gorry, >> >> We have compiled our changes in response to both Michael’s email below and >> Gorry’s message about the <> tagging (see the 9621 email thread) in our >> postings below. >> >> Just a few notes: >> >> 1) Please review our updates to remove <> as suggested in Gorry’s mail. We >> *think* we’ve understood Gorry’s intent, but let us know if changes are >> necessary. In particular, >> >> -Section 11 does not have code, but we believe you’d like the artwork to >> stay as it was. Please correct if this assumption is not what was intended. >> >> -We have removed the <> beginning in Section 7.3 to the end of the doc (not >> all terms listed in Gorry’s mail appeared in that section). Please let us >> know if any further changes or reversions are necessary. >> >> -We also cut the <> from a comment in the code. Please review and let us >> know if this should be reverted. >> >> 2) Regarding the update from Michael’s mail below: >> >>> Section 13: >>> I’m not sure about the placement of “either” here. Again, who am I to say, >>> I’m not a native speaker… but it _might_ be a mistake? Anyway, the >>> sentence is just very long and hard to read. Hence my suggestion: >>> >>> OLD: >>> While it is not >>> necessarily expected that both systems are implemented by the same >>> authority, it is expected that the Transport Services Implementation >>> is provided as a library either that is selected by the application >>> from a trusted party or that it is part of the operating system that >>> the application also relies on for other tasks. >>> >>> NEW: >>> While it is not >>> necessarily expected that both systems are implemented by the same >>> authority, it is expected that the Transport Services Implementation >>> is provided as a library that is selected by the application >>> from a trusted party. Alternatively, it could be part of the operating >>> system that >>> the application also relies on for other tasks. >> >> Thank you for calling this sentence to our attention as the structure indeed >> needs help. We also feel something is off with the verb tense and “expected” >> matching up (seems like a future or conditional situation instead of simple >> present maybe?). >> >> Please take a look at our suggested rewrite and let us know if this would >> work? >> >> Perhaps/Current: >> The same authority implementing both systems is not necessarily expected. >> However, there is an expectation that the Transport Services Implementation >> would either: >> >> * be provided as a library that is selected by the application from >> a trusted party or >> >> * be part of the operating system that the application also relies >> on for other tasks. >> >> Please review the files carefully as we do not make changes after >> publication. >> >> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9622.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9622.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9622.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9622.xml >> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9622-diff.html (comprehensive diff) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9622-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 >> changes only) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9622-lastdiff.html (last to current >> version only) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9622-lastrfcdiff.html (last to >> current rfcdiff) >> >> Please contact us with any further updates/questions/comments you may have. >> >> We will await approvals from each of the parties listed on the AUTH48 status >> page prior to moving forward to publication. >> >> The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: >> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9622 >> >> Thank you. >> >> RFC Editor/mf > > I have checked the diff and I have no further comments, thanks for your work. > As an author, I approve this. > > Gorry
I also checked the diff and I also have no further comments. Thank you very much for the precious level of detail and dedication. As an author, I approve this version. Philipp S. Tiesel -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
