[Slim] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-19: (with COMMENT)

Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Mon, 08 January 2018 13:04 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: slim@ietf.org
Delivered-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D58621242F5; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 05:04:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language@ietf.org, slim-chairs@ietf.org, bernard.aboba@gmail.com, slim@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.68.2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <151541664682.11364.3894010973109439182.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 05:04:06 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/slim/tnhO3jLr16B6CI7v9IQcD3FjVVM>
Subject: [Slim] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-i?= =?utf-8?q?etf-slim-negotiating-human-language-19=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: slim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: Selection of Language for Internet Media <slim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/slim>, <mailto:slim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/slim/>
List-Post: <mailto:slim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:slim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim>, <mailto:slim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 13:04:07 -0000

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-19: 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.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

One question: I can't really imagine cases where the send and recv would be
used to indicate different things. Can you provide an example (and better
explain in the document why this 'complexity' was added)?

One purely editorial note: I think section 5.1 could simply be removed before
final publication as part of the reasoning is given in the intro already.