Subject: [regext] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 19:48:07 -0800

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-regext-launchphase-06: No Objection

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-regext-launchphase/

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

I wondered about the use of "launch" in the title and Abstract of this
document, as possibly not easily parsable for some readers. I'm looking at

   It is typical for domain registries to operate in special modes
   during their initial launch to facilitate allocation of domain names,
   often according to special rules.  This document uses the term
   "launch phase" and the shorter form "launch" to refer to such a
   period.

and wondering if

   It is typical for domain registries to operate in special modes
   during their initial launch to facilitate allocation of domain names,

s/during their initial launch/as they begin operation/

   often according to special rules.  This document uses the term
   "launch phase" and the shorter form "launch" to refer to such a
   period.

might be correct, and easier for some folks to parse (especially since the
first paragraph is basically saying 'This document uses "launch phase" and
"launch" to refer to "launch"', which doesn't add as much as I hoped :-)

If that makes sense, I'll leave you to decide whether a similar substitution
might make sense in the Abstract, but do the right thing.

---

From: "Gould, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:42:12 +0000

Spencer,

Thank you for the review and comment.  I respond to your feedback below.
  
—
 
JG

James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
[email-masked]

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> 

On 11/29/17, 7:48 PM, "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    

    
    and wondering if

    

Yes, I see that using “launch phase” and “launch” to refer to “launch” is recursive and can be cleaned up as you propose s/during their initial launch/as they begin operation/.  

I believe the Abstract should stay as is, since it’s important to refer to the word launch and there is no recursive language in the Abstract.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:21:20 -0600

Hi, James,

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Gould, James <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Yes, I see that using “launch phase” and “launch” to refer to “launch” is
> recursive and can be cleaned up as you propose s/during their initial
> launch/as they begin operation/.
>
> I believe the Abstract should stay as is, since it’s important to refer to
> the word launch and there is no recursive language in the Abstract.

That all works for me. Thanks for considering my comments.

Spencer