And just in case you missed it.... I'm attaching my message from Tuesday.
Deb
On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 7:09 PM Daniel Kahn Gillmor <d...@fifthhorseman.net>
wrote:
> Hi Alanna--
>
> On Mon 2025-06-02 14:14:31 -0700, Alanna Paloma wrote:
> > ) “IMAP” and “SMTP” are considered well-known abbreviations and
> > therefore do not require expansions.
> >
> > See here for more information on abbreviations:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=abbrev_list
>
> OK, that seems fine to me :)
>
> > To match the companion document RFC-to-be 9788, we have updated to
> > “Non-Structural Header Field”.
> >
> > Additionally, we have added a definition for “Non-Structural Header
> > Field” in the Terminology section, per Bernie’s request in the AUTH48
> > thread of RFC-to-be 9788 (see
> > <
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/mHJq9YpnEB-vSl2pIeLZSWFzpIE/>).
> Please
> > review and confirm that the text is satisfactory.
>
> Thanks, this is a nice and tidy cleanup. I approve.
>
> --dkg
>
--- Begin Message ---
Same issue for this draft, except the only word is 'traditional'. I think
'classic' might work here too? what do you think?
(again Roman's draft)
Deb
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Alanna Paloma <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org>
Date: Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 5:21 PM
Subject: [AD] Inclusive language in RFC-to-be 9787
<draft-ietf-lamps-e2e-mail-guidance-17
To: Deb Cooley <debcool...@gmail.com>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>
Hi Deb,
We asked the authors to review the term “traditional” per the Inclusive
Language guidance on <
https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>.
They have declined to make any updates.
Please review the item above and reply to the main AUTH48 thread if you
would like the authors to make any changes. Otherwise, please let us know
that no changes are needed.
Thank you,
RFC Editor/ap
--- End Message ---
--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
