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.ht... 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-docu... 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-docu...

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