Subject: [Last-Call] IETF last call review of draft-eggert-bcp45bis-06.txt

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2021 14:04:09 +0100

Hi,

I did a quick review of this draft since it is in IETF last call.

---

The shepherd write-up claims reasonable consensus from the interested
community, but this seems to be based on the discussions on the 
GenDispatch mailing list. Was the consensus of the "interested 
community" actually looked for before this IETF last call?

---

I see you have included the pre-November 10, 2008 copyright boilerplate.
Did you attempt to contact the author of RFC 3005 to ensure that this
was no longer an issue?

---

Please remove the "Note to Readers" at the top of the document. It no
longer applies.

---

2.

   within the area of any working group, area or other established list.

This would read better as

   within the scope of any working group, area, or other established 
   list.

---

2.

   When discussions are started on the IETF discussion list for which
   such venues do exist, they should be continued there as soon as this
   is pointed out.

The use of "there" is mildly ambiguous. Try...

   When discussions are started on the IETF discussion list for which
   such a venue does exist, they should be continued at that other venue
   as soon as this is pointed out.

---

2.

s/and only announce/and announce/

---

2.

I, too, am uneasy about the use of the term "unprofessional commentary".

I think that you should simply point back at the references you have in
the second paragraph of Section 1. That gives you wider scope than 
"commentary", and it saves you from the debate about "unprofessional"
since "professional" is only mentioned one (in passing) in RFC 7154.

---

3.

Please remove all mention of "Sergeant at Arms". We are not a quasi 
military organisation, we have no Internet Police, and the list
moderators do not carry weapons.

Please rewrite this whole section in terms of "list moderators". This
looks like a relatively straightforward piece of editing, but since it
is to the core of the document, I think the draft should be presented
for further review after the changes.

(I appreciate that this document is described in the shepherd write-up
as intended to set out how the list is *currently* managed and to not
make substantial changes. That may have been the original intention, but
it is clear from the changes applied since RFC 3005 that the scope has
gone beyond this. It is, therefore, appropriate to also fix this use of
inappropriate terminology.)

---

Appendix A

   The acknowledgements section should be an unnumbered appendix.

---

Appendix B

   Such an appendix is usually removed prior to publication. Please add
   a note telling the RPC to do that.

   However, the changes from 3005 to the final version of this document
   should be summarised in a section of this document (appendix or main
   section).

---

You reference [IETF-AHP] as authored by the IETF. I think that should be
"IESG" as the policy was not a consensus document (for all that we agree
with it). Your alternative would be to refer to RFC 7776.

Thanks for the work,
Adrian