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

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Mon, 14 April 2014 15:44 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
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 97EE71A0479 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 08:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.772
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.772 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 nZlv7ghmAky4 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 08:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36E991A048A for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 08:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4169; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1397490290; x=1398699890; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=ykpmeAbgg+oyBoMqzkDfDnvVxjJ6/iy8azuVaqmiliw=; b=UbhehLHC3TURBWLCHxhx03WjHKxsCd9g5krwhgRXQp+9AISex2p+5ahp 7oODv3lhYT81uSlil5zJR2NxpifoVm/Xlslxow2Up7QyU4iNIbssubVBp 7EvFzxS5bcZFFxExNLldeCcVJiiN6tBo2y7ysicvHpU8x32x6vWzc6PSM w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqIEACcBTFOtJssW/2dsb2JhbABagkJ/w3mBOnSCJQEBAQR4ARALBBQJFg8JAwIBAgFFBgEMAQcBAYd4Dcs9F45uB4Q4AQOYYYZUi2+DMzs
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.97,857,1389744000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="13238411"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Apr 2014 15:44:48 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.86] (ams-bclaise-8915.cisco.com [10.60.67.86]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3EFimel015599; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 15:44:48 GMT
Message-ID: <534C0270.2060503@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 17:44:48 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <rse@rfc-editor.org>, 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> <534BFDD1.9050608@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <534BFDD1.9050608@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010206010005020004090104"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/BRBGfaxbo9Ird-UDu-6XiskRrgA
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 15:44:58 -0000

On 14/04/2014 17:25, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
> 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.

Thanks for your guidance.

Regards, Benoit