Editorial comments on draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis

[Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>]

Greetings again. Seeing draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis in IETF Last Call 
made me review it again. I have a few editorial comments you will 
hopefully find helpful.

1. The document should spell out the first use of "URL", or "URL" 
should be added to the list of acronyms that don't need to be spelled 
out. (My preference is for the former, given how many people forget 
what the "U" stands for.)

1.3.1. s/TYI-sub-series/FYI-sub-series/

1.3.1, Individual submissions. It says that individuals can submit 
documents to the RFC Editor for Informational and Experimental RFCs. 
What abut BCPs and FYIs? Those are not standards-track. If you mean 
to say that individual submissions for BCP and FYI must go through 
the IESG, you should say so explicitly.

2.2. s/salesmen/salespeople/

2.4. The document jumps back and forth between usages of words:
  Postscript file <--> .ps file
  text file <--> .txt file
Also, it sometimes equates Postscript files with PDF files, which is 
not correct. My preference is to never use ".ps file" or ".txt file", 
and toyou make it clear that PostScript files have very different 
properties for viewing than PDF files. (Oh, and you should spell out 
"PDF" the first time you use it.)

2.8. In the first sentence, add "in references" after "The use of 
URLs". Otherwise, it sounds like one can never use a URL in an RFC.

4. "11. IANA Considerations" should be floating and optional, not 
just floating. This document is a good example of it being optional.

4.12. The document does not give a preferred format for references, 
but doing so would be very useful. You folk have re-written many of 
my references at RFC publication time, but I would have done it right 
the first time if I had a template.

4.12. The template for Internet-Drafts seems odd to me. It doesn't 
include the draft name, and there is no indication in the reference 
that this is an Internet Draft.

4.13. You have started to let people use URLs instead of email 
addresses; that should be mentioned here.

5. I couldn't find any mention of the "RFC-DIST" list anywhere on the 
RFC Editor site. I found it through Google, but not on the site. This 
is the first I had ever heard of the list.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium