Hi, Peter. Please note that my email address has changed.
We have restored "is published"; we do not want to create any concerns. 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 13, 2025, at 11:57 AM, Peter Koch <k...@denic.de> wrote: > > 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
