Hi, Thanks, Sandy. I approve publication.
Colin On 18 Mar 2025, at 10:17, Sandy Ginoza wrote: > 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
