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

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alex,

On 2005-04-20 6:47 am Alex Rousskov said the following:
> On Tue, 2005/04/19 (MDT), <[e-mail]> 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...

Sure, no problem.

> -   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 :-).

Hmm.  I wonder if it could be a difference between British and American
then.  Both of the sub-items are singular, so I really don't see how 'are'
is appropriate.  But it's not a big point.

>      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).

That's fine.

> -  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.

This was simply a matter of turning what's correct but not obvious into
what's clear, too.  Sloppy reading could lead to the assumption that one
were including the draft of the current submission here, which doesn't
make sense, but I know how some people read text...

>      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.

Then some other change is needed.  The language is not good as it is.

> -         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.

Hmm - I thought I left the change log alone ?  Well, it was after midnight
when I got there, so --- Ahh! No, that's right, I did a global search and
replace of those number.  Right.  Fine, then.


	Henrik

_______________________________________________
Tools-team mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-team