At 11:32 PM -0500 5/24/06, Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) wrote:
> In section 4.1:
o Req-TIMEFRAMES-2 - The consensus of the IETF community is that
the time required for a pre-publication review should
be under 10
days. The actual performance targets and metrics are
expected to
be determined as part of the contract negotiation process.
The term "pre-publication review" is not defined anywhere in the
document, and it probably should, given this consensus statement.
It should probably refer to section 3.1.
That sounds fine. You might also want to change "pre-publication
review" to "Pre-approval review or editing" to match the heading of
3.1. "Pre-publication review" sounds like what is done just before
the RFC is emitted.
> Section 5 talks about "potential issues" for the IETF. Two bullet
items do not match the earlier part of the document.
o Pre- vs Post-Approval Editing: If emphasis switches from post-
approval editing to pre-approval editing, then IETF
processes must
be adapted to make use of this service. The processes
for post-
approval editing can also be streamlined.
Section 3.1 makes a requirement that the emphasis must switch. So,
"If" should probably be "When".
I'm not sure that 3.1 requires that the emphasis must switch to
pre-approval reviews. We are putting a requirement that the
publisher support pre-approval reviews, but we have not yet decided
if the IETF will really make use of it.
o Req-PREEDIT-1: The IETF technical publisher should perform an
editorial review of documents before WG last call and provide
feedback to the authors to improve quality of the documents. This
review should strive to maintain consistency in appearance with
previously published documents.
The phrase "should perform" is quite different than "should support".
It seems that the consensus was that this should be done, so "should
perform" is correct.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
