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 <[email protected]> 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, [email protected] 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 -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
