Dear Lynne, Thanks for updating my contact info. Regarding mix of tense: the sentence now starts with past tense (was published) but continues in present tense. Again, non native speaker at the keyboard. I will unlikely be able to respond further until 24 January.
Best Peter > On 7. Jan 2025, at 14:15, Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholo...@amsl.com> wrote: > > Hi, Peter and Paul. Happy New Year! > > Peter, we updated your contact information per your note below. > > Regarding your question about verb tenses: The only changes we could see in > the diff files were the updates from "is published" to "was published". > We're not sure what "mix of past and present tense" means; please clarify > with examples. > > Post-6000 published RFCs use both "... document is published" and "... > document was published", so please let us know if you would like us to change > "was" back to "is". > > The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9609.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9609.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9609.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9609.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9609-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9609-rfcdiff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9609-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9609-lastdiff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9609-lastrfcdiff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9609-xmldiff1.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9609-xmldiff2.html > > Thank you! > > RFC Editor/lb > > >> On Jan 2, 2025, at 2:34 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> wrote: >> >> One note on Peter's approval. (The other two parts are just fine.) >> >>> On Jan 1, 2025, at 09:23, Peter Koch <p...@denic.de> wrote: >>> >>> 1) The statement under 4.2 Completeness of the Response >>> >>> At the time this document was published, there are 13 root server >>> operators operating a total of more than 1500 root server instances. >>> >>> is factually incorrect, since we usually acknowledge the fact that there >>> are only twelve. I understand where this is coming from given the desire >>> to mention 'instances' and haven't checked the archives, so I won't block >>> on this one, but I think it's an avoidable mistake. >> >> Given that Peter says that he "won't block on this one", and that the >> wording in question has been in the document since the -00 version, and that >> the wording was approved by both the DNSOP WG and the IETF, I would really >> rather not have this discussion during AUTH48. Please stet. >> >> --Paul Hoffman > > > > >> On Jan 1, 2025, at 9:23 AM, Peter Koch <p...@denic.de> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 11:28:52AM -0800, Lynne Bartholomew wrote: >> Dear all, >> >>> Please note that this document awaits your review and approval. Please >>> review via the links below, and let us know whether you approve this >>> document for publication in its current form or additional changes are >>> needed. >> >> I have read the latest version and believe it to be OK and ready. >> I have two observations and one editorial request: >> >> 1) The statement under 4.2 Completeness of the Response >> >> At the time this document was published, there are 13 root server >> operators operating a total of more than 1500 root server instances. >> >> is factually incorrect, since we usually acknowledge the fact that there >> are only twelve. I understand where this is coming from given the desire >> to mention 'instances' and haven't checked the archives, so I won't block >> on this one, but I think it's an avoidable mistake. >> >> 2) In that same sentence (and a few other occurences) I'd just note that the >> mix of past and present tense, very recently introduced, looks very >> confusing to me. >> Obviously, as the only non-native speaker I'll just take this as a lesson. >> >> 3) Finally, my postal address is outdated, but I'd like to follow >> Paul's and Matt's example and change this: >> >> OLD: >> Peter Koch >> DENIC eG >> Kaiserstrasse 75-77 >> 60329 Frankfurt >> Germany >> Phone: +49 69 27235 0 >> Email: p...@denic.de >> >> NEW: >> Peter Koch >> DENIC eG >> Email: p...@denic.de >> >> >> Kind regards and a Happy New Year >> Peter >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
