Hi Lars, The -04 version of the draft should address your comments.
Cheers. p.s. Due to some confusion with uploads, the -03 version only partially addressed some of the comments received during IESG review. > On Apr 5, 2022, at 12:42 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 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 >> <mailto: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/ >> <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/ >> <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 >> <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 "unacceptable", "inapplicable", "revoked", "rescinded".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 >> <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 >> <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 <mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com> Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanand...@gmail.com
