Hi,
Thank you for expediting this! I’ve reviewed the document and it looks
good. Responses inline.
On 16 Mar 2025, at 23:34, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as
necessary)
the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] We note that the document action includes the
following:
This document is the product of the IRTF Open Meeting RAG
(irtfopen).
And we see that the markdown originally used the following:
workgroup: "IRTF"
consensus: true
We believe the Status of This Memo should reflect that it is a product
of
the IRTF. While the consensus bit was set to true in the markdown, we
have
removed it from the XML file to get what we think is the right Status
of
This Memo. It currently matches option 21 (IRTF Informational (No
RG))
from the list of possible Status of This Memos
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/status-memos.txt> .
Please review and let us know if changes are needed.
-->
The selected boilerplate looks correct to me.
2) <!-- [rfced] Section 2.1 of RFC 5743 indicates that the level of
review
should be indicated early in the document.
RFC 5743:
o The breadth of review the document has received must also be
noted. For example, was this document read by all the active
research group members, only three people, or folks who are not
"in" the RG but are expert in the area?
Do you want to add something more to the following text that appears
in the Introduction?
This document represents the consensus of the Internet Research
Steering Group (IRSG). It is not an IETF product and is not a
standard.
-->
We could maybe say: “This document was developed by the Internet
Research Steering Group (IRSG) with broad consultation and review from
the IRTF community. It represents the consensus of…”?
3) <!-- [rfced] For readability, please consider whether this sentence
can be clarified.
Original:
Harassment or disruption due to the posting of messages that are
inflammatory, abusive, or otherwise inappropriate, or the repeated
posting of off-topic material, on these lists and discussion forums
will not be tolerated.
Perhaps A:
Harassment or disruption on these lists and discussion forums
due to posting messages that are
inflammatory, abusive, or otherwise inappropriate, or due to the
repeated posting of off-topic material, will not be tolerated.
Perhaps B:
The following will not be tolerated on these
lists and discussion forums:
* Harassment
* Disruption
* Inflammatory, abusive, or otherwise inappropriate
* Repeated posting of off-topic material
-->
I’d prefer option A here, and agree it reads better than the original.
4) <!-- [rfced] They use of "they" and "their" is somewhat confusing
in
this sentence. Please review and consider whether the updates
clarify the
intended meaning.
Original:
These documents are
encouraged as an important part of the process of disseminating
research ideas and ensuring that they work in the Internet at
large,
but authors must ensure that prior work on which they are based,
including their own prior work, is appropriately cited and
acknowledged, and that such documents respect the copyright of
prior
work and are written with the permission of any co-authors.
Perhaps:
These documents are
encouraged as an important part of the process of disseminating
research ideas and ensuring that they work in the Internet at
large.
However, Authors must ensure that prior work on which current work
is
based, including the authors' own prior work, is appropriately
cited
and acknowledged, and that such documents respect the copyright of
prior work and are written with the permission of any coauthors.
-->
Better, but maybe not quite there yet. How about:
These documents are
encouraged as an important part of the process of disseminating
research ideas and ensuring that they work in the Internet at large.
Authors must ensure that prior work, including their own prior work,
is appropriately cited and acknowledged, and that new documents
respect the copyright of prior work and are written with the
permission of any coauthors.
5) <!-- [rfced] We wonder whether the mention of English here should
be
generalized so it applies to communication challenges related to all
languages. Focussing on English as the de facto language makes sense
in the
following section.
Original:
Participants should avoid the use of slang and unnecessary jargon
in
both spoken and written communication. When faced with English
that
may be difficult to understand, IRTF participants should make a
sincere effort to understand each other and to engage in
conversation
to clarify when necessary.
Perhaps:
Participants should avoid the use of slang and unnecessary jargon in
both spoken and written communication. When
communication difficulties arise, IRTF participants should make a
sincere effort to understand each other and to engage in
conversation
to clarify when necessary.
-->
Yes, that’s better.
6) <!-- [rfced] As we believe the goal of this reference is to note
the
IRTF's adoption of the IETF anti-harassment policy, we have updated
the
reference title to match what appears on the IRTF page. Please let us
know
if you prefer to refer to the IETF's anti-harassment policy.
Original:
[ANTI-HARASSMENT]
"IETF Anti-Harassment Policy", November 2013,
<https://irtf.org/policies/#anti-harassment> .
Current:
[ANTI-HARASSMENT]
IRTF, "Anti-Harassment Policy",
<https://irtf.org/policies/#anti-harassment> .
-->
Perhaps:
[ANTI-HARASSMENT]
"IETF Anti-Harassment Policy", November 2013,
as also adopted by the IRTF,
<https://irtf.org/policies/#anti-harassment> .
7) <!-- [rfced] The NIST DOI returns "WITHDRAWN_Guidance for NIST
staff on
using inclusive language in documentary standards." Would you like to
include the web.archive.org link the IESG now points to from the IESG
Statement on inclusive language?
https://web.archive.org/web/20250203031433/https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2021/NIST.IR.8366.pdf
Original:
[NISTIR8366]
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
"Guidance for NIST Staff on Using Inclusive Language in
Documentary Standards", Interagency or Internal Report
8366 (NISTIR 8366), DOI 10.6028/NIST.IR.8366, April
2021,
<https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8366> .
Suggested:
[NISTIR8366]
National Institute of Standards and Technology,
"Guidance
for NIST Staff on Using Inclusive Language in
Documentary
Standards", Interagency or Internal Report 8366 (NISTIR
8366), DOI 10.6028/NIST.IR.8366, April 2021,
<https://web.
archive.org/web/20250203031433/https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/
nistpubs/ir/2021/NIST.IR.8366.pdf>.
-->
Yes, please update the link to point to web.archive.org
8) <!-- [rfced] We have lowercased "research group" and "research
group
chair" because they were not referring to specific research groups.
Please
review and let us now if any updates are desired.
-->
That’s fine.
9) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
online Style Guide
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature
typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for
readers.
Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this
should
still be reviewed as a best practice.
-->
I don’t think any further changes are needed.
Thanks!
Colin
--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
