Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Jeremy Rand <jeremyrand@airmail.cc> wrote:
> Suzanne Woolf:
>> This message opens a Working Group Last Call for:
>>
>> "Special-Use Names Problem Statement"
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps/>
>> Proposed status: informational
>>
>> Starts: 2 Feb. 2017
>> Ends: 23 Feb. 2017 (3 weeks)
>>
>> Discussion should go to the mailing list.
>>
>> Is this draft ready to advance for publication as an Informational RFC, and as guidance for possible updates to RFC 6761? Does it describe the relevant issues clearly, and cover all the relevant ones that should be taken into account in future work in the IETF on the special use names registry or RFC 6761?
>>
>> If not, can you suggest changes that would get your support for advancing it? (“Send text” if possible!)
>>
>>
>> thanks,
>> Suzanne & Tim
>
> Trivial spelling nit: Sec. 4.2.2 says "unilateral use by the TOR
> project".  The correct spelling is "Tor" (only the "T" in "Tor" should
> be capitalized.)  Also, according to
> https://www.torproject.org/docs/trademark-faq.html.en, "The Tor Project"
> is the correct spelling of the phrase (all 3 words should have the
> initial letter capitalized).

Thank you very much -- Ralph added this (and Suzanne's below) to the
issue tracker. I did the easier part of addressing the nits and
closing the nitty issues. We've published a version to GitHub with
some of the nits addressed, and we will work on addressing more of the
substantive comments.

W

>
> Cheers,
> -Jeremy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf