Hi Lars, Thanks first of all for the review. See comments inline.
> On Apr 5, 2022, at 6:02 AM, Lars Eggert via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> > wrote: > > Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bfd-rfc9127-bis-02: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to > https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-rfc9127-bis/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Document updates RFC9127, but does not cite it as a reference. Added. > > Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see > https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more > guidance: > > * Term "invalid"; alternatives might be "not valid", "unenforceable", "not > binding", "inoperative", "illegitimate", "incorrect", "improper", > "unacceptable", "inapplicable", "revoked", "rescinded". The choice of the word ‘invalid’ is unfortunate. However, it is not in the text of the draft, but rather a node in the data model. Changing the name of the node in the data model would be considered a non-backwards compatible change, further complicating the publication of this draft. Please advise. > > Thanks to Joel Halpern for their General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review > (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/2_6QYcQc4Tflyh0-cr6_e9Gc43s). > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > NIT > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose > to > address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by > automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there > will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you > did with these suggestions. > > Document still refers to the "Simplified BSD License", which was corrected in > the TLP on September 21, 2021. It should instead refer to the "Revised BSD > License". Fixed. Thanks. > > > Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanand...@gmail.com
