Hi Colin, We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 page and will continue with the publication process shortly.
Thanks for the quick turnaround (an actual auth48!). RFC Editor/sg > On Mar 17, 2025, at 8:46 PM, Colin Perkins <c...@csperkins.org> wrote: > > 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
