Subject: [precis] Ted Lemon's No Objection on draft-ietf-precis-framework-16: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ted Lemon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:09:56 -0700

Ted Lemon has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-precis-framework-16: 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 http://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:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-precis-framework/

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

In section 6, last paragraph, the reference to [UNICODE] would be more
helpful if it said (see Chapter 4 of [UNICODE]), similar to later
references in section 7.

Aside from that, this is an excellent attempt to provide a basis for
unraveling the gordian knot of unicode use in standards, and I look
forward to seeing how it works in practice.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:26:55 -0600

> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-precis-framework/

Noted.

> forward to seeing how it works in practice.

Thanks!

Peter