Hi Madison, Deb, and Valery, Snipped for brevity.
> On Oct 3, 2025, at 12:41 AM, Valery Smyslov <[email protected]> wrote [snip] >>>> 62) Section 4.4.2 >>>> >>>> CURRENT: >>>> The GSA policy substructure contains parameters for the SA that are >>>> used with this group. >>>> >>>> NEW: >>>> The GSA policy substructure contains parameters for the SA that is >>>> used with this group. >>>> >>>> Rationale: it is SA that used with this group, and parameters are >>>> for this SA. >>> >>> You’ve moved to a singular verb rather than a plural to highlight >>> that there is a single SA. I might suggest wording that might flow a bit >>> better. >>> I believe that It still refers to a single SA, but because the GSA Policy >>> Substructure does contain a plurality of parameters that the word >>> “are” is appropriate. >>> >>> NEW >>> The GSA policy substructure contains SA parameters that are >>> used with this group. >>> >>> I expect Madison can guide us to the most optimal wording here. >> >> 6) Adding Valery’s second proposal here to consolidate AUTH48 threads: >> >>> NEW >>> The GSA policy substructure contains a set of parameters for a single SA >>> inside the group. >> >> Would the following text work for this sentence (and retain the meaning of >> the original text)? >> >> Perhaps: >> The GSA policy substructure contains parameters for a single SA that is >> used with this group. > > Fine by me, but let's wait for Brian's opinion. I like it. > > I noticed that the following requesting change wasn't done: > >> 54) Section 4.4.1 >> >> CURRENT: >> Group policies are comprised of two types: GSA policy and GW policy. >> >> Perhaps it is not consistent, but I think that we should re-expand GW here >> (and perhaps GSA too). >> GW is defined in the very beginning and is not used up to this point, thus I >> think it would >> be helpful for readers to remind what it is. >> >> NEW: >> Group policies are comprised of two types: group SA (GSA) policy and >> group-wide (GW) policy. > > While I admit that the proposed text re-expanded the terms that have already > been expanded, > the rationale for it is that this expansion was ~30 pages before, and terms > were not used since that, > so re-expansion may help readers to refresh their memory. I don't insist, but > I think this is helpful. > Brian, Deb, your opinion? I see no issue with re-expanding the terms, but if Madison thinks it isn’t needed then let’s leave it be. Thanks, Brian > > > Regards, > Valery.
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
