[Tools-team] Re: Language review of draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-08

On Tue, 2005/04/19 (MDT), <henrik@levkowetz.com> wrote:

> Sounds good.  I believe Brian want to bring it before the IESG at their
> Thursday telechat, so the sooner the better.

Done. Thanks for all the dirty work you did to improve the last version!  
According to the diff, I have applied all your changes with the exception  
of the following corrections. We can still add them via RFC Editor Notes  
if needed...

-   Submitter authentication and submission authorization is in scope.
+   Submitter authentication and submission authorization are in scope.

The native speakers assured me that the original "are" is correct here :-).

     Automated posting: If the submitter decides to proceed with automated
        posting from the Check page, the system authenticates the
-      submitter (and may also check whether the submitter is allowed to
-      post the draft, if and when such checks are instituted).
+      submitter and may also check whether the submitter is allowed to
+      post the draft.

I added your "may" which, I hope, introduces enough uncertainty. I did not  
add "if and when" because it is an informal introductory text, and it  
sounded like we are creating some additional vague requirements or  
dependencies here (that might get in conflict with formal requirements).

-  Cancellation of previously posted drafts is out of this document scope.
+  Cancellation of posted drafts is out of this document scope.

The term "posted draft" is defined in the document and implies that all  
"posted drafts" are "previosuly posted". Perhaps I am missing some  
important caveat here.

     Furthermore, drafts containing PDF or Postscript
-   format versions must ...
+   format must ...

The term "draft version" is defined and is different from the (also  
defined) "draft format" term. I wanted to avoid the format/version  
confusion here.

-         to RFC 3978 and 3979 (or successors) must appear in the draft
+         to RFC 3667 and 3668 (or successors) must appear in the draft

The above was in the old "Change log" entry and it seems appropriate to  
keep the original text.

Alex.

_______________________________________________
Tools-team mailing list
Tools-team@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-team