Re: [auth48] [C381] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9300 <draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-38> for your review

[Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Two small comments:


>> b) The first sentence here indicates that discussions take place
>> with other proposals.  If the suggested text is not correct, please
>> clarify.
>> 
>> Original:
>> When used in discussions with other Locator/ID
>> separation proposals, a LISP EID will be called an "LEID".
>> Throughout this document, any references to "EID" refer to an
>> LEID.
>> 
>> Suggested*:
>> When discussing other Locator/ID separation proposals, any
>> references to an EID in this document will refer to a LISP EID.
>> 
>> * We also suggest removing "LEID", because it is only used twice
>> in published RFCs to date:  one sentence each in RFCs 6830 and
>> 8112.  Also, "LEID" is not used anywhere else in the group of
>> RFCs-to-be related to this document (Cluster 381 /
>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C381 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C381>>): -->
> 
> I agree. This is a good change. Use "LISP EID" where LEID was occurred.
> 

Since this document does not discuss other proposals we can simplify to:
 
Any references to an EID in this document will refer to a LISP EID.


> 
>> 30) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online 
>> Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>> 
>> and let us know if any changes are needed.  For example, please consider
>> whether the following should be updated: black hole and native. 
>> 
>> In addition, consider whether "traditional" should be updated. It may be 
>> ambiguous as it is subjective. 
>> -->
> 
> Do whatever is standard. I don't understand what you want us to do exactly.

Looking at this document we can do the following:

Replace “traditional” with “commonly used”
Replace “native” with “innate"
Replace “ICMP black holes” with “ICMP packet losses”

Sounds reasonable?

Ciao

L.