Re: [Ecrit] WGLC draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-11 -- end date Oct 13

[Randall Gellens <[e-mail]>]

Please see inline.

--Randall

On 8 Oct 2021, at 5:57, Caron, Guy wrote:

> Inline.
>
>
>
> I will point out that all my proposed editorial changes are just that, 
> editorial and are not meant to be blocking WGLC progress.
>
>
>
> I leave it to the authors to accept or reject any and all of those 
> suggested changes.
>
>
>
> Guy
>
>
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Randall Gellens <[e-mail]>
> Envoyé : 6 octobre 2021 10:43
> À : Caron, Guy <[e-mail]>
> Cc : ECRIT <[e-mail]>
> Objet : [EXT]Re: [Ecrit] WGLC draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-11 -- 
> end date Oct 13
>
>
>
> I have comments on a few of Guy's proposed edits; the ones not 
> mentioned below I have no opinion on.
>
>
>
> (1) Regarding Guy's proposal to delete geodetic location from the 
> definition of "Location" as well as the definition of "Geodetic 
> Location," I think it would be more confusing to do that.  Note that 
> the definition of "Geodetic Location" says "Note: geodetic location  
> is defined here for context, but is not used elsewhere within this 
> document."  We could add additional clarifying text if anyone feels 
> it's needed, e.g., adding to the "Location" definition text such as 
> "However, geodetic location is out of scope of this document."
>
> [GC] I suggest - Location: In the context of this document, the term 
> Location is restricted to a civic location.
>
>
>
> And get rid of the Geodetic Location definition.

[rg] I believe it is helpful for clarification to retain the definition 
of geodetic.  For the clarifying text that explains that geodetic isn't 
used in the document, I think "out of scope" or "not discussed" or "not 
used" is more clear than "restricted".


> (2) Regarding Guy's proposed insertion of "proffered" into the 
> definition of "Similar Location," I suggest instead adding "queried" 
> as I think it's more clear (especially for some English speakers).
>
> [GC] Languages are not 100% codified, which lives room for preferences 
> and style. I don’t think “queried” is more clear than 
> “proffered”. I would argue that “queried” is less accurate in 
> the sense that the findService Request is not querying something, it 
> is offering/presenting/requesting a location to be processed for 
> validation.

[rg] Validation is only done as part of a findService request, which is 
a query.  Hence, it is most clear to describe it as a "queried" 
location.  If you don't like "queried", then "sent in a <findService> 
request" is the most direct and clear language.

> I recognize that “query”/”queried” are used in the document, 
> along with “provided” and “input”, and “proffered” would 
> be a new word. Despite the fact that I think “proffered” is 
> appropriate, I will not die on that hill.
>
>
>
> I do take exception to the commentary in parenthesis though, which I 
> find on the tangent of being offensive and discriminatory. I’m not 
> sure if these comments were submitted as an individual or as an IETF 
> WG Chairperson but think about the message this is sending to this 
> community or international participants: If you mother tongue is not 
> English, you do not have the moral authority to suggest editorial 
> changes.

[rg] Thanks for letting me know you found my comment offensive, Guy.  
That was not my intent and I hadn't realized it could be seen as 
offensive. I'm sorry.  I was not suggesting that anyone lacked moral 
authority for editorial suggestions; to the contrary, editorial comments 
can be especially valuable from those for whom their first language is 
not English as spoken in North America (especially the northeastern U.S. 
and much of Canada).  The point I was trying to make is that using words 
that are less common can make comprehension more difficult for some 
English speakers, including some for whom it is not their first language 
as well as some whose native form is different.  In conversations with 
IETF participants over many years, I've learned that words and phrases 
that may seem artful from the perspective of a native speaker of English 
in the U.S. can be difficult for others to follow.  I try to use more 
common words and more direct language in Internet Drafts, as they have a 
worldwide audience.


> (3) In Section 3, in the paragraph starting "In a LoST 
> <findServiceResponse>", Guy suggests adding "the" in front of "<HNO>, 
> <RD>, <STS>, <POD>, <A3> and <A1> Civic Address Elements".  I 
> disagree; the sentence reads better without it.
>
> [GC] Matter of style. I don’t care.
>
>
>
> (4) Also in Section 3, in the paragraph starting "The information 
> provided in the request may be enough", Guy suggests changing "alert 
> the user to" to "alert the user of".  I disagree, "to" reads better.
>
> [GC] “Alert to” calls for an immediate action while “alert of” 
> is more passive and is meant to raise awareness. I took the latter to 
> be appropriate in the context but I’m fine either way.
>
>
>
> (5) Section 4, second paragraph, Guy suggests changing "cannot assume 
> that any of them are the correct location" to "cannot assume that any 
> of them is the correct location".  I suggest either retaining "are"
>
> or changing to "is" and also adding "one" in front of "any": "cannot 
> assume that any one of them is the correct location."
>
> [GC] I’m fine with this suggestion.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --Randall
>
>
>
> On 5 Oct 2021, at 13:44, Caron, Guy wrote:
>
>
>
>> I've reviewed -11 and only have editorial changes to propose. 
>> Embedded
>
>> in track-change in the MSWord version attached. I did not recheck the
>
>> XML schema.
>
>>
>
>> Other than that, I'm fine with advancing this document.
>
>>
>
>> Thanks,
>
>>
>
>> Guy
>
>>
>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>
>> De : Ecrit <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> De 
>> la part de Randall Gellens
>
>> Envoyé : 29 septembre 2021 15:52 À : ECRIT 
>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> Objet :
>
>> [EXT][Ecrit] WGLC draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-11 -- end date 
>> Oct
>
>> 13
>
>>
>
>> This starts WGLC for draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-11, a LoST
>
>> extension to return complete or similar location info.
>
>>
>
>> Please send both comments and messages that you support advancement 
>> of
>
>> the draft to this mailing list before October 13.
>
>>
>
>> Thank you,
>
>>
>
>> --Randall
>
>>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>
>> Ecrit mailing list
>
>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> -------- External Email: Please use caution when opening links and
>
>> attachments / Courriel externe: Soyez prudent avec les liens et
>
>> documents joints
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> External Email: Please use caution when opening links and attachments 
> / Courriel externe: Soyez prudent avec les liens et documents joints