Re: [Ecrit] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-18: (with COMMENT)

[Randall Gellens <[e-mail]>]

On 1 Mar 2022, at 5:37, Lars Eggert via Datatracker wrote:

> Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-18: 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-ecrit-similar-location/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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    "unacceptable", "inapplicable", "revoked", "rescinded".

Is the concern specifically with the term "invalid," presumably because 
it's a homograph for the word "invalid" referencing someone with a 
chronic debilitating condition? That is, the term "valid" is fine? If 
so, "not valid" might be OK, but we use the LoST protocol element 
<invalid>.

>
> Thanks to Russ Housley for their General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) 
> review
> (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/mSoW1geq28l0DgXA32V6cZz01fQ).
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>
> Section 4. , paragraph 1, nit:
>>  supposed to be; it is guessing. Therefore the correct location may 
>> or may n
>>                                  ^^^^^^^^^
> A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb 
> "Therefore".
>
> These URLs in the document can probably be converted to HTTPS:
>  * http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml
>  * http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema
>  * http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic10.dtd