--On Friday, 28 January, 2005 11:54 -0500 Dean Anderson
<dean(_at_)av8(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Scott W Brim wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 03:02:00PM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand
allegedly wrote:
The request for review is addressed to the IAOC chair
and should include a description of the decision or
action to be reviewed, an explanation of how the
decision or action violates the BCPs or
violates -> is presumed to violate
The text is correct as is. "Presume" is to "assume before".
Indeed, perhaps the decision under review may be presumed not
to violate before the review concludes otherwise.
The explanation to be given to the review is about how and why
the decision under review should be found to violate
something. It would be incorrect to say "...an explanation of
how the decision or action is presumed to violate the BCPs..."
Yeah, but the original text isn't right either.
"...believed to violate..."
"...putatively violates..."
"...alleged to violate..."
and other phrases would, I think, satisfy both Scott's concerns
and yours.
These are the sort of language/presentation details that I wish
we could assume that final editing would straighten out. It is
not a good sign that we think we need to fix them on the IETF
list.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf