Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy

From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 20:26:24 +0000

HI Jullien,

Thanks for your careful review and helpful feedback. I did not see any discussion on it. My apologies if I missed it. Please see my comments inline [cue].

-----Original Message-----
From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Monday, April 30, 2018 at 9:27 AM
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy
Resent-From: <[email-masked]>
Resent-To: <[email-masked]>, Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>, Charles Eckel <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, Charles Eckel <[email-masked]>
Resent-Date: Monday, April 30, 2018 at 9:27 AM

    Thanks. Added the WG on cc for any follow-up.
    
    Alissa
    
    > On Apr 24, 2018, at 6:09 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
    > 
    > Hello,
    > 
    > I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
    > The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
    > drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review. The purpose
    > of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more
    > information about the Routing Directorate, please see
    > ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
    > 
    > Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
    > would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF
    > Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
    > discussion or by updating the draft.
    > 
    > Document: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-04
    > Reviewer: Julien Meuric
    > Review Date: April 24, 2018
    > IETF LC End Date: April 19, 2018
    > Intended Status: BCP
    > 
    > *Summary:*
    > The I-D seems almost ready for publication. I have some minor concerns
    > about this document that I think should be resolved before publication.
    > 
    > *Comments:*
    > The choice of words sometimes feels to me a bit tough or too narrow.
    > However, I am not a native-speaker and I am not always used to set phrases.
    > Moreover, I suggest a few text tweaks, including probable nits that the
    > RFC Editor would certainly spot anyway.
    > 
    > *Major Issues:*
    > No major issues found.
    > 
    > *Minor Issues:*
    > To me, a couple of words may benefit from alternate terms:
    > - "location" sounds too specific for a continent, would not "region" or
    > "territory" fit better?

[cue] Perhaps, but this use of "location" is consistent with its use in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-13, so I think it is best to stick with location.

    > - "travel pain" (used twice) feel strong, "travel effort" would convey a
    > similar idea in a smoother way.

[cue] I would be okay with that change.

    > 
    > In section 2, I am not sure that "a meeting in North America in March, a
    > meeting in Europe in July, and a meeting in Asia on November" is so
    > obviously a "typical cycle". I would thus drop that unnecessary text to
    > start with "The 1-1-1 policy", and update the following phrase "such a
    > cycle" into "a fixed cycle".

[cue] Works for me, except I might use "a given cycle" rather than "a fixed cycle".

    > 
    > 
    > *Nits:*
    > - s/High level guidance for the meeting policy/High Level Guidance for
    > the Meeting Policy/
    > - s/The 1-1-1-* meeting policy/The 1-1-1-* Meeting Policy/
    > - s/regions. i.e.,/regions, i.e./
    > - s/roughy/roughly/
    > - s/we plan/We plan/
    > - s/there were/There were/
    > - s/meetings. e.g./meetings. E.g./
    > - s/There have not been a large number/ There has not been a large
    > number/  [or "was not"? Defer to RFC Editor?]
    > - s/IETF54(/IETF54 (/
    > - s/Implementation of the policy/Implementation of the Policy/
    > - s/to assist/For assisting/
    > - s/to provide/For providing/
    > - s/Re-evaluation and changes to this policy/Re-evaluation and Changes
    > to this Policy/

[cue] I do not think the changes in capitalization are necessary. I am happy to it leave it to the RFC editor to decide. 

Cheers,
Charles

    > 
    > 
    > Regards,
    > 
    > Julien
    > 
    > 
    > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    > 
    > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
    > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
    > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
    > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
    > 
    > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
    > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
    > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
    > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
    > Thank you.
    >