Paul, The changes look good, I think once Andrew's comments are addressed and if there is no more feedback, I think it is ready for last call. Cheers, Brad On 7/12/18, 6:13 AM, "rssac-caucus on behalf of Andrew McConachie" <rssac-caucus-bounces@icann.org on behalf of andrew.mcconachie@icann.org> wrote: > On Jul 11, 2018, at 22:17, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> wrote: > > Greetings. During the open RSSAC meeting in Panama last month, RSSAC asked for a couple of clarifications in the document around why we didn't propose a single anonymization mechanism. This will help readers understand the context of the document when RSSAC takes it out to the research community, the recursive resolver operators, and other authoritative resolver operators. > > Attached please find a PDF with changes highlighted in that Word style we've all gotten to know and love. The changes appear on pages 4 and 5, and on page 14. Please send any comments or questions to this list. > > Please review by July so that we can get a new complete version to RSSAC in time for them to consider during their August meeting. Hi Paul, Thanks for putting this text together. It looks good. However, I wonder if the text on pages 4-5 is in the right place. The previous text of 1.1 began with the actual SoW in past tense, then ended with a sentence in the future tense, “It is expected that the work will reach into the wider DNS community.." The new text then continues in the present tense and discusses what the document contains, but this is no longer talking about the SoW. We’ve now shifted into how this document is responding to the SoW. I suggest either creating a new heading for this text or moving it up into the Introduction. There needs to be some kind of break for the reader between what the RSSAC Caucus was asked to do and what the eventual outcome of the work was. —Andrew _______________________________________________ rssac-caucus mailing list rssac-caucus@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rssac-caucus