Detailed editorial comments
Charlie Perkins
charliep at iprg.nokia.com
Mon Oct 6 23:34:37 CEST 2003
Hello Elwyn,
Here are some detailed editorial comments, mostly as
a matter of style and syntax. I found several instances of
language that made me stop, sit up, and ponder. This
could be viewed as a technique for getting someone's
attention, but more often it's just distracting to the person
who was really flowing along with the main thought.
In such cases, the ornamental value of the expression
is outweighed by the derailment of the train of thought.
I hope you don't mind if I point out a few instances of
this among my suggestions below. It's not that they are
incorrect, strictly speaking.
In my writing preference, the word "clearly", and usually
the word "clear", is a "clear" indication of something
wrong. First, it is usually meant to browbeat the reader
into submission -- as if, there is "obviously" no room for
disagreement. Similarly, "obvious" is also a danger sign.
Secondly, it begs the reader to disagree with you, in a
way to counteract your implicit act of verbal dominance.
I'd suggest purging practically every occurrence of "clear"
from the document.
Change:
> work which has lead to an extremely successful, all-pervasive network
to:
> work which has led to an successful and pervasive network
or, better:
"work which has facilitated the widespread deployment of
the Internet and especially the infrastructure of the Internet"
After all, most of the people in the world have never
even made a telephone call.
Change:
> a, still extensive, list of perceived problems which were classified
to:
> a (still extensive) list of perceived problems which were classified
or, better:
a list of perceived problems which were classified
Change:
> and in terms of work in progress. The effects of this growth have
to:
> and volume of work in progress. The effects of this growth have
Delete "Extant" in:
> time. Extant evidence dating back to at least 1992 drew similar
In section 1.3, the colons should be replaced by periods.
In current section 1.6, which I hope will be moved to an appendix,
there is an extra space before "term" in:
> o The term customer has been replaced by stakeholder when
In section 2.1, replace "sectional" by "narrow" in:
> o Working Groups can potentially be hijacked by sectional interests
Also, replace "blinker" by "obstruct" in:
> technology because this would be likely to blinker the IETF's view
Replace "concensus" by "consensus".
In the paragraph before section 2.2:
- Replace "mandated" by "official" (if I understand the meaning correctly!)
- Delete "the 'conventional'"
- Replace "which" by "that"
Change:
> Externally, the IETF is often placed in the same bracket as these
to:
> Externally, the IETF is often classified with these
In section 2.2, there's too much capitalization in the first
paragraph. Changing all the "extras" to lower case would
not be a bad idea, but changing at least the first two extras
is really recommended.
Insert "as used here" after:
> ........... . Effective Engineering Practices
Change:
> o Failure to identify at an early stage (before the design is
> frozen), and/or then to ensure that there is a uniform view in the
> WG of the issues that need to be resolved to bring the work to a
> satisfactory conclusion.
to:
> o Failure to identify the issues that need to be resolved at an early
> stage (before the design is frozen), and/or then to ensure that
> there
> is a uniform view in the WG of those issues
In the following sentence, replace "to deliver" by "for"
> The IETF standards engineering process is not set up to deliver
In the following, replace "mebers" by "members":
> directly interested mebers of the WG, and by subject matter
Replace "emphasises" by "emphasizes", unless this is your personal
preference, in:
> structure of the IETF emphasises communication between the IESG
Replace "posess" by "possess" in:
> o The IETF does not posess effective formal mechanisms for inter-WG
Change:
> adequate for the older, smaller organization, but are apparently not
to:
> adequate for an older, smaller IETF, but are apparently not
Replace "of" by "likely to be found in" in:
> the capabilities of a single person.
Change:
> o Interacting with WGs
>
> o Understanding network and computer technology generally, and their
> own area in detail
>
> o Cross-pollinating between groups
>
> o Coordinating with other areas
to:
> o Interaction with WGs
>
> o Understanding network and computer technology generally, and their
> own area in detail
>
> o Cross-pollination between groups
>
> o Coordination with other areas
Change:
> clear that only superhumans can be expected to do this job well. To
to:
> extremely difficult to do this job well. To
In the following, change "second" to "send":
> people who work for large companies who can afford to second IESG
Change:
> this flexibility, and is burying itself in procedures that rapidly
> move from organizational conveniences to rigid and immutable
> shibboleths.
to:
> this flexibility, and is entangling itself in procedures that evolve
> from organizational conveniences into encumbrances.
Change "weighting" to "emphasis" in:
> have chosen to give heavy weighting to continuity of IESG and IAB
In section 2.6.6, replace "whilst" by "while". On the previous line,
delete "Clearly". In the same sentence as whilst, again delete "clearly".
In the next sentence, replace "Also" by "Furthermore".
In section 2.6.7, first sentence, delete "intensely".
On page 21, delete "a particular kind of"
On page 23, replace "steeped" by "immersed", or perhaps "long familiar"
Lastly, on page 24, replace "Author's" by "Editor's".
Regards,
Charlie P.
More information about the Problem-statement
mailing list