Re: [tao-discuss] First draft of new version

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Many thanks.

Responses to your responses...

> > 2.2.5
> > s/the RFC Editor and IANA involved/the RFC Editor and IANA are involved/
> >
> 
> This is the full sentence:
> 
> Although both the RFC Editor and IANA involved the same people for many
> years, the RFC Editor is a separate job. Today,
> 
> Your suggestion would make it grammatically incorrect, right? (But am a
> bit hesitant to say this as a non-native english speaker to a native
> one, so happy to learn :) ).

Sorry, my bad!

Original text stands.

> > 2.2.5
> > I think this may be the right place to cover another significant misconception.
> We should certainly cover it somewhere and this looks as good a place as any.
> Something like...
> > "Another misconception common in the IETF and across the industry as a whole
> is that all RFCs are the work of the IETF. In fact, of the four sources of RFCs listed
> above (IETF, IAB, IRTF, and Independent Submissions), only those coming direct
> from the IETF  through working groups or sponsored by ADs are capable of having
> IETF consensus and being described as IETF specifications or standards."
> >
> 
> Accepted, but suggest we remove 'in the IETF and across the industry as
> a whole'.
> 
> So I'd suggest:
> 
> Another common misconception is that all RFCs are the work of the IETF.
> In fact, of the four sources of RFCs listed above (IETF, IAB, IRTF, and
> Independent Submissions), only those coming direct from the IETF
> through working groups or sponsored by ADs are capable of having IETF
> consensus and being described as IETF specifications or standards.

wfm

Adrian