Dear Madison and Eliot,
please find here below (in-line) our feedback. In case of additional remarks
please let us know.
Best
Pierluigi and Enrico
From: Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) <rfc-...@rfc-editor.org>
Sent: 24 January 2025 18:06
To: Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org>; ENRICO FRANCESCONI
<enrico.francesc...@cnr.it>; pierluigi.spin...@gmail.com
<pierluigi.spin...@gmail.com>; caterina.l...@gmail.com <caterina.l...@gmail.com>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; superu...@gmail.com
<superu...@gmail.com>; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
<auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9676 <draft-spinosa-urn-lex-24> for your review
Madison,
I've caught an issue or two.
In Section 9.2, there should be a line break between 1st and 2nd paragraphs.
See now below.
On 24.01.2025 17:36, Madison Church wrote:
Hi Authors, Thank you for your patience as we work on our end to update this
document! We have posted the updated files below that include your changes. We
just have a few followup questions/comments. Please feel free to respond to
them in this email thread and let us know how we should update the document.
1) For Section 3.6 (Date Format), we are having trouble with the added Hebrew
characters because the text mixes LTR (left to right) and RTL (right to left)
scripts, which will cause errors when preparing this document for publication.
We are currently experimenting with workarounds and will update you soon on
potential solutions.
That's fine. We wait for your updates
2) For the following question:
15) <!-- [rfced] We have a few questions about the text below. Original: 2.2.
Jurisdiction-code Register A new jurisdiction-code registry has been created.
Each entry contains the following elements: a) Should the title read
"Jurisdiction-Code Registry" ("Registry" rather than "Register")?
No, it is actually a database, not the office managing such a database
The RFC Editor will correct me if I am wrong, but registry in this case refers
to a place, like a web site, in which records are stored, not so much the
office. Actually, in our view, it is both the things: an archive of the
jurisdiction codes and a website in which jurisdiction code records can be
queried. Anyway, let's wait for RFC Editors feedback
[rfced] Eliot is correct - we are not referring to an office, but "refers to a
place, like a web site, in which records are stored."
Based on our previous feedback, please verify that the term "register" is being
used correctly or let us know if any updates are needed.
No the terminology is not correct in at least one place. While the authors may
call this new thing a register or a registry, what is certainly the case is
that our terminology is "IANA registry". I would suggest a global change from
register to registry, but I too would like the authors to confirm.
Eliot
As previously specified, we refer to a database of jurisdiction codes not to an
office.
In order to decide for “register" or “registry" we referred to English
dictionaries and typical usage found on the Web. According to them we found the
following distinction summed up here below:
- Register: official list or record, for example of births, marriages, and
deaths, of shipping, or of historic places. a book or record of attendance, for
example of students in a class or school or guests in a hotel.
- Registry: a place or office where registers or records are kept.
That’s why at first we choose the term “register”. But if IANA uses the term
“registry” to indicate a database, we rely on it and on native speakers'
decision.
3) Thank you for taking the time to update terms for consistency throughout the
document! For the following term:
local-name vs. local name
Please let us know how we can update for consistency throughout the document or
if the term is used correctly as is in each instance. For example, should
"local name" appear with a space when the term is used on its own (e.g., "the
remainder ("local name") is intended for local use…") and with a hyphen when
the term modifies a noun (e.g., local-name components)?
In our intention “local-name” (with hyphen) refers to a component of a LEX
identifier: it is basically a non-terminal symbol (a variable) of an ABNF
grammar.
It is splitted into:
local-name = work ["@" expression] ["$" manifestation]
For this reason, we’d rather write it with hyphen, so the following changes
have to be made:
- "the remainder ("local name") is intended for local use…” —> "the remainder
(“local-name") is intended for local use…”
- "5.3. Structure of the Local Name” —> "5.3. Structure of the Local-Name”
- "Therefore, the more general structure of the local name appears as follows:”
—> "Therefore, the more general structure of the local-name appears as
follows:”
- "the local names considering the characteristics of its own state or
institution organization.”—> "the local-name considering the characteristics of
its own state or institution organization.”
- "for defining formal parameters to guarantee local name uniqueness” —> "for
defining formal parameters to guarantee local-name uniqueness"
--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
