[ipv6-wg] [address-policy-wg] Cosmetic Surgery Project: Extended Review Period until 9 July on revised RIPE Policy document for IPv6 database objects

Dear Peter,
  thank you very much for your input and remark.

I apologize if I forgot to include the IPv6 and Database WG mailing
lists as decided during RIPE 66 on request of the community. I slavishly
followed the procedure defined by the Cosmetic Surgery Project that was
meant for the Address Policy WG mailing list only.

The original announcement for the extended Review Phase is available at:

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2013-June/007931.html


For further feedback the draft of the policy document is online and
ready for community review at:

https://www.ripe.net/ripe/readability/improving-the-readability-of-ripe-documents

Please send your feedback on this draft document before 9 July 2013.


Best Regards
Emilio Madaio
Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC



On 6/25/13 5:51 PM, Peter Koch wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 03:29:45PM +0200, Emilio Madaio wrote:
> 
>> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/readability/improving-the-readability-of-ripe-documents
> 
> May I express some doubts about the 'cosmetic surgery project'?
> The project was introduced as early as October 2009 and RIPE 513 was published
> in February 2011.  What appears to happen is a very late post publication copy
> editing.  In this particular case, the policy itself is a change to the
> database attributes and - other than, say, address allocation/assignment
> policies - not very likely read its own.  Any structural changes
> to the document (where's the template, by the way?) and changes to style
> (passive voice here and there) or readability might better be invested
> in the general database documentation.
> 
> The new draft eliminates the data protection aspect from the
> introduction/motivation section, which I consider a loss. The abstract
> wins, though.  The draft continues to use 2000::/46 for the example
> where some chunk of 2001:DB8::/32 as per RFC 3849 might be a better choice.
> 
> -Peter
>