> -----Original Message----- > From: spfbis-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:spfbis-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > The IESG > Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 5:44 AM > To: IETF-Announce > Cc: spf...@ietf.org > Subject: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-09.txt> > (Resolution of The SPF and Sender ID Experiments) to Informational RFC > > The IESG has received a request from the SPF Update WG (spfbis) to > consider the following document: > - 'Resolution of The SPF and Sender ID Experiments' > <draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-09.txt> as Informational RFC > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-06-09. Exceptionally, comments may > be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
In my quest to ensure I'm never done with a document I'm editing, I reviewed this myself and found a couple of things I plan to change after Last Call completes. They are either grammar corrections or removal of redundant text, and aren't substantive, so I don't expect they're controversial. So just to head off other reviewers' comments: 1) The Introduction's first and second paragraph contain substantially identical text. This will be trimmed. 2) In the Analysis section, I believe conclusions 4 and 6 are redundant. I propose to remove 6. 3) There are a few places where I should've used "that" instead of "which". -MSK
