Subject: [avtext] Alissa Cooper's Yes on draft-ietf-avtext-avpf-ccm-layered-03: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 07:21:01 -0800

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-avtext-avpf-ccm-layered-03: Yes

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-avtext-avpf-ccm-layered/

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

- Section 5: s/dependent from each other/dependent on each other/

- Section 6: The formulation "the authors' current understanding" seems a
bit out of place for a document that is a product of a WG/the IETF;
perhaps "based on current information" or some such would be better.

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 00:11:22 +0000

Hi Alissa,
Those changes below can be taken care of by the RFC editor, no?
Thanks,
Stephan

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 18:37:48 -0600

> Those changes below can be taken care of by the RFC editor, no?

Hi Stephan,

I think that's probably true for Alissa's first comment, but if we want 
the RFC editor to take care of the second we will need to provide the 
specific change in an RFC editor note.

Thanks!

Ben.

>> Please refer to 
>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 00:27:39 +0000

Hi Alissa,
I removed the IESG exploder.
Please see below inline.
Stephan

On 1/3/17, 07:21, "Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>[…]

Done.

>perhaps "based on current information" or some such would be better.

My suggestion to address this issue is to simply remove “authors’”.  This would lead to changes similar to the following:

OLD:
The authors’ current understanding is that the prudent response to a SLI message received […]

NEW:
The current understanding is that the prudent response to a SLI message received […].

I think that is less clumsy than “Based on current information, the current understanding is that the prudent response to a SLI message received […]”.  I think it’s also more correct than “Based on current information, the prudent response to a SLI message received […]”, because there actually is something like an understanding involved in creating the recommendation--the “prudent response” cannot be directly derived from current information.

Does this address your concern?

Thanks,
Stephan