Hi Colin, Thanks for your quick reply. We have updated the document and posted the revised files. Please review and let us know if additional updates are needed or if you approve the RFC for publication.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9775.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9775.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9775.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9775.html AUTH48 diffs: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9775-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9775-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) Comprehensive diffs: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9775-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9775-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Please remember to refresh if you the changes don’t appear. Thanks, RFC Editor/sg > On Mar 17, 2025, at 7:44 PM, Colin Perkins <c...@csperkins.org> wrote: > > Hi Sandy, > > Option A looks good here. > Colin > > > On 18 Mar 2025, at 9:36, Sandy Ginoza wrote: > >> Hi Colin, >> >> We have updated the document as discussed below, except the update to >> [ANTI-HARASSMENT]. How do you feel about A) just referencing the IETF >> anti-harassment statement or B) be splitting it into two references. The >> current suggestion feels overloaded. >> >> Perhaps A: >> >> Current: >> Participants must follow >> the IETF anti-harassment policy, which also applies to the IRTF >> [ANTI-HARASSMENT]. >> >> With an updated reference: >> [ANTI-HARASSMENT] >> IETF, “IETF Anti-Harassment Policy", >> >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-ietf-anti-harassment-policy-20131103/> >> . >> >> >> Perhaps B: >> Participants must follow >> the IETF anti-harassment policy [ANTI-HARASSMENT], which also applies to >> the IRTF >> [IRTF-ANTI-HARASSMENT]. >> >> Or >> Participants must follow the IETF anti-harassment policy, >> which was adopted by the IRTF (see [IETF-ANTI-HARASSMENT] >> and [IRTF-ANTI-HARASSMENT]). >> >> With 2 references: >> [ANTI-HARASSMENT] >> IETF, “IETF Anti-Harassment Policy”, November 2013, >> >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-ietf-anti-harassment-policy-20131103/> >> . >> >> >> [IRTF-ANTI-HARASSMENT] >> IRTF, "Anti-Harassment Policy”, >> <https://www.irtf.org/policies/#anti-harassment> . >> >> >> The other updates have been incorporated as described below. The current >> files are available here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9775.xml >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9775.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9775.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9775.html >> >> AUTH48 diffs: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9775-auth48diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9775-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> Comprehensive diffs: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9775-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9775-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> Thanks, >> RFC Editor/sg >> >>> On Mar 17, 2025, at 3:50 AM, Colin Perkins <c...@csperkins.org> wrote: >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> • <!-- [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. >>> >>> • <!-- [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…”? >>> >>> • <!-- [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. >>> >>> • <!-- [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. >>> >>> • <!-- [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. >>> >>> • <!-- [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> . >>> >>> • <!-- [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 >>> >>> • <!-- [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. >>> >>> • <!-- [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
