On Feb 6, 2012, at 5:19 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > First off, this is an RSSAC document so it is not clear why you think someone > from the root > opserator community should do the copy editing.
There is a large/complete overlap between the RSSAC and the root server operators. Many of the companies that operate root servers have staff doing many things, such as technical writing. Some have copy editors. The fact that ICANN has not done a copy edit pass on the document after five rounds says that maybe you should look to others. Waiting for ICANN to do this might be futile, given that it doesn't involve making policy. >> The paragraph at the end of section 1 (the "isn't really 2119 language" >> text) is quite cute and will cause you a world of pain and delay. You have >> de-capped everything, so remove the paragraph. (Unless you're just trying to >> make John Klensin even grumpier, which is also quite cute but will also >> cause you a world of pain and delay). > > IETF tools complains when that text is removed. Will see if there is a clean > way around it. The tool might complain, but it should not prevent submission. You are now not using 2119 language, so you shouldn't need to put in the not-really-2119 preamble. >> The text in 3.2.5 doesn't make sense. NTP can't be on the list if the >> operator is expected to get time updates "in as secure manner as possible". >> A proposed rewording would be to just remove that phrase because you >> describe what operationally is needed to use NTP in a non-crypto secure >> manner. > > or ... update the text to describe secure NTP - which is not uniformly > used. > or the use of local "clocks". You can't say "can use NTP" and "in as secure manner as possible": they don't match. >> For the author reference, consider adding the URL >> <http://www.root-servers.org/>, given that mail to the address listed will >> often be automatically lost. (Bonus points for updating that page to >> eliminate the decade-old presentations and just leave the news!) > > again, this is an RSSAC work product, not just root-operators. and the > URL > listed is not uniformly used by all operators. so will likely just > leave > it as RSSAC. That said, if URLs are accepted in author references (and > I have > to admit not seeing that used previously) then a link to the RSSAC page > might > be in order. You can use URLs in author references. However, the RSSAC web page is mostly worthless unless you like bureaucratic history. The root-servers.org page is useful. If you don't want to provide a useful URL, that's fine. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
