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

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

> 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.

That’s fine. 

>> 
>>> 30) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online 
>>> Style Guide <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”

That is fine. 

> Replace “native” with “innate"

No keep native. This is very important. We are referring to native forwarding versus overlay forwarding. 

> Replace “ICMP black holes” with “ICMP packet losses”

Fine. 

> 
> Sounds reasonable?

Yes - all but keep native. 

Dino