Subject: [Tools-team] Language review of draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-08; Section 8.4, WG Flag

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:00:07 +0200

Hi again, Alex,

In response to the recent comments on the draft, as a clarification,
I'd suggest replacing this text in section 8.4:

OLD:

   WG flag: True for WGN drafts and false for all other drafts.  For
      example, "true" for "draft-ietf-sieve-vacation-13".

with
NEW:

   WG flag: True for WGN drafts and false for all other drafts.  For
      example, "true" for "draft-ietf-sieve-vacation-13".  This flag
      only influences the further handling of initial ( -00 version )
      draft submissions.

Thoughts?

	Henrik

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

---

From: "Alex Rousskov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:48:43 -0600

>       only influences the further handling of initial ( -00 version )

It would be better if the added sentence explicitly limited its scope to
"this document" or somesuch. It is possible that WG flag will influence
more than just 00 submissions, eventually. While we may need a better
scheme to set the flag or extract WG ID, the notions of a "WG flag" and
"WG ID" are sound, IMO.

Said that, I would not object to your wording even it is added "as is".

Thanks,

Alex.

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 01:20:33 +0200

Hi Alex,

> Said that, I would not object to your wording even it is added "as is".

Ok, so what about:

NEW:

    WG flag: True for WGN drafts and false for all other drafts.  For
       example, "true" for "draft-ietf-sieve-vacation-13".  This flag
       only influences the further handling of initial ( -00 version )
       draft submissions, as far as the current document is concerned.

Henrik

---

From: "Alex Rousskov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:32:09 -0600

>        draft submissions, as far as the current document is concerned.

Sounds good to me.

I hope to submit the updated draft with your changes within 24 hours.

Thank you,

Alex.

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 09:41:09 +0200

Hi Alex,

> I hope to submit the updated draft with your changes within 24 hours.

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

The latest xml, txt and diff files from me are at

http://ietf.levkowetz.com/drafts/tools/draft-submission/

	Henrik

---

From: "Alex Rousskov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:47:12 -0600

> 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.

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:10:03 +0200

Hi Alex,

> of the following corrections. We can still add them via RFC Editor Notes  

Sure, no problem.

> 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.

> dependencies here (that might get in conflict with formal requirements).

That's fine.

> "posted drafts" are "previosuly posted". Perhaps I am missing some  

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...

> defined) "draft format" term. I wanted to avoid the format/version  

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

> The above was in the old "Change log" entry and it seems appropriate to  

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

---

From: "Alex Rousskov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 09:01:18 -0600

On Wed, 2005/04/20 (MDT), <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 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.

I was tought that (A and B) are always "multiple" while (A or B) is  
"singular"
iff B is singular. It makes sense in some other languages I pretend to  
know,
but I am sure it is not universal.  Let's see what the RFC Editor's opinion
on  this important subject is :-).

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

Yes, I agree that it sounds awkward. We can fix it during "Authors 48  
hours"
if we are lucky enough to avoid another revision.

Thanks,

Alex.