Hi Eliot, >> General: >> ---------- >> >> Q_1: >> >> In Section 2, the IETF reply text sometimes uses "we" to refer to IETF. >> I think it would be good to say "IETF". >> >> For example: >> >> "We consider .ARPA part" -> "IETF considers .ARPA part" >> "...few cases where we may further..." -> "...few cases where >> IETF may further..." >> >> Etc. >> >> This may not be seen needed when reading the draft, but it will be >> useful if e.g. the IETF reply text is quoted elsewhere. > > I have done this where it has been possible to do without leaving an > awkward structure. If the text is taken out of that context, it is > standard practice (at least in America) to use brackets to replace a pronoun, > such as [The IETF] for "we".
Ok. >> Abstract: >> ------------ >> >> Q_2: >> >> I think it would be good if the Abstract also would indicate that the >> LS was primarily sent to ICANN. Currently the text only says that an LS was >> sent somewhere, and that IETF was invited to reply. > > I propose the following abstract to address your concern: > > The U.S. NTIA has solicited a request from ICANN to propose > how the NTIA should end its oversight of the IANA functions. > After broad consultations, ICANN has in turn created the IANA > Stewardship Transition Coordination Group. That group > solicited proposals for thre three major IANA functions: > names, numbers, and protocol parameters. This document > contains the IETF response to that solicitation for protocol > parameters. It is meant to be included in an aggregate > response to the NTIA alongside those for names and numbering > resources that are being developed by their respective > operational communities. Looks good. >> Q_3: >> >> The last sentence of the Abstract says: "The IETF community is invited >> to comment and propose changes to this document." >> >> It is unclear what "this document" refers to. If it refers to the >> aggregate proposal mentioned earlier, I think that should be more clear. > > This sentence will be removed, as the invitation will have expired. Ok. >> Introduction: >> --------------- >> >> Q_4: >> >> In the 1st paragraph, I think it would be good to indicate that IETF >> was invited to reply to the LS. > > While we were expected to reply, I do not know that we received an actual > specific invitation. I am happy to be told otherwise. I based my comment on the text (now suggested to be removed) in the Abstract, saying that the IETF community is invited. I thought that it meant that the LS sender invited the IETF community to comment :) So, if there was no specific invitation, I agree we should not state that it was. Thanks! Regards, Christer _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
