Joel, thanks for your review. Juliusz, thanks for your responses. I think the phrasing in 2.2 is clear enough as-is. I entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa > On Jul 7, 2019, at 11:06 AM, Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.dir...@joelhalpern.com> > wrote: > > I do not consider this a show-stopper (I listed it as a nit / editorial), but > at least the -07 text does not look better in this regard. > > In my experience, if this were indeed mathematics, one would talk about a > metric (how one measures) and a distance (the result of applying the measure. > E.g. Given two points in a metric space, with a distance between them of d, > ... Or more verbosely, given a space with a metric M, the distance between > two points a and b is M(A, b). > > Yours, > Joel > > On 7/7/19 10:26 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >> Dear Joel, >> Thank you very much for your kind review. >>> Nits/editorial comments: >>> In section 2.2, in talking about "metric M", if I have understood >>> properly, >>> I think it would be clearer if you referred to "metric value M". >> This section has been expanded with human-readable text and a reference to >> a research paper, and should therefore now be easier to understand. >> I have, however, decided to follow the usual style of mathematical >> writing, and have therefore chosen not to follow your advice. I hope that >> is okay. >> Thanks again, >> -- Juliusz >> _______________________________________________ >> babel mailing list >> ba...@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
