Re: [ws-tx] Re: Groups - New Action Item #0057 Review use of RFC 2119keywords ...

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

>Ian Robinson wrote: The issue which spawned the AIs is issue 97. I don't believe we need a new
>issue to enact the AIs (for the editors to check the application of RFC
>keywords) as the editorial checking was part of the resolution of issue 97
>and the AIs are a just a convenient way to make sure the editors have this
>on their work queue. I agree with Andy that it would help make sure we
>don't lose anything if discussions not directly related to the checking of
>RFC keywords were tracked under a distinct issue.
>Regards,
>Ian
>  
>
mm1: As I indicated to Andrew, submitting an issue relevant to the 
comments is fine. As a part of the Public Review period, we are asked to 
have a comments list of issues that log the discussion, our resolution 
and our changes [1]. That is the premise for my request to Andrew to 
open an issue as well. Here are two examples on which to base that request:

   1. Reference changes to line 145, 194, and 197 not included in #102.
   2. Some recommendations from Andrew seem to differ from Ram's as well
      (such as line 235 and line 242, both in Section 3.3.3). [2]

As an observation, whether or not these are seen as editorial or not may 
be a TC discussion point as indicated in the previous meeting - given 
our intent and focus. No opinion either way. Thank you.

[1] TC process, see: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#3.2
.....The TC must track the comments received as well as the disposition 
of each comment.....No changes may be made to the Public Review Draft 
during a review. If changes are required the specification must be 
withdrawn from review then resubmitted....
[2] These may be considered part of #102 if the TC agrees.