Re: [Secret] Lars Eggert's No Objection on charter-ietf-tigress-00-06: (with COMMENT)

Hi Lars!

Thanks for the feedback!  I've merged the changes in response to your feedback into -07.  The grammar fixes were also merged.

Roman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Secret <secret-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Lars Eggert via
> Datatracker
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 5:15 PM
> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: tigress-chairs@ietf.org; secret@ietf.org
> Subject: [Secret] Lars Eggert's No Objection on charter-ietf-tigress-00-06: (with
> COMMENT)
> 
> Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-tigress-00-06: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
> paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-tigress/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> # GEN AD review of charter-ietf-tigress-06
> 
> CC @larseggert
> 
> ## Comments
> 
> ### Paragraph 1
> ```
>   The WG charter includes the definition and standardization of a protocol that
> ``` Since this *is* the WG charter, this text reads a bit odd.
> 
> ### Paragraph 1
> ```
>   Privacy goals include:
> ```
> The text below talks about "share" when the text above talked about
> "transfer".
> Suggest to align the terminology.
> 
> ## Nits
> 
> All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose
> to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
> automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
> will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
> did with these suggestions.
> 
> ### Typos
> 
> #### Paragraph 5
> ```
> - * Aside from potentially the IP address, the relay server should not learn the
> + * Aside from network-level metadata, the relay server should not learn
> information about the ```
> 
> #### Paragraph 9
> ```
> - * Ensure the sender has intent to share (proof of the fact that the share
> + * Ensure the sender has the intent to share (proof of the fact that the share
> +                        ++++
> ```
> 
> ### Grammar/style
> 
> #### Paragraph 0
> ```
> nd or a family member. A private home owner may want to provide access to
> th
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^ ``` This noun normally spelled as one word.
> 
> #### Paragraph 24
> ```
> form the credential transfer in a secure manner. The protocol will use appro
>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` Consider replacing this phrase with
> the adverb "securely" to avoid wordiness.
> 
> ## Notes
> 
> This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use
> the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
> individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].
> 
> [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
> [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
> [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Secret mailing list
> Secret@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secret