IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] AD review draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide

"Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <rse@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 14 April 2014 15:25 UTC

Return-Path: <rse@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27F3C1A0479 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 08:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1AxA5N08RoV7 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 08:25:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.amsl.com (mail.amsl.com [IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 746161A04BC for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 08:25:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5852E1E12A7; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 08:24:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c9a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cg7d-EfdYQiz; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 08:24:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Heathers-MacBook-Pro.local (98-125-168-3.dyn.centurytel.net [98.125.168.3]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C80791E12A4; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 08:24:42 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <534BFDD1.9050608@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 08:25:05 -0700
From: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <rse@rfc-editor.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, lionel.morand@orange.com, "draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide@tools.ietf.org>
References: <52D9030B.3010402@cisco.com> <533BD276.7000401@cisco.com> <22885_1396976646_53442C06_22885_3037_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E54D5C4@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <534BDD8A.7040800@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <534BDD8A.7040800@cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050908030202080205090407"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/3wtUY1z5R9kNNlfAat2nwbbF2qk
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 09:06:40 -0700
Cc: dime mailing list <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] AD review draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime/>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 15:25:18 -0000

Hello all,

>>
>> - Editorial
>> Please don't use "we" in RFCs
>>
>> */[LM] Should I say "I"? /**/J/*
>>
> [BC] That's one of those rules I received from my previous ADs, and
> that I've been applying blindly
> In fact, I can't find it at
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/rfc-style
> Copying Heather, who might be able to shed some light.
>>
>> *//*
>>
>>
>>

I'm not certain where that guidance came from - the RFC Editor does not
have a problem with the use of "we" in an RFC.  In fact, using "we" is
rather common, particularly for WG-generated RFCs.

-Heather

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email