[lisp] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-10: (with COMMENT)

[Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-10: 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-lisp-6834bis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-10

CC @larseggert

## Comments

### Section 6, paragraph 8
```
     1.  V1 = V2 : The Map-Version numbers are the same.

     2.  V2 > V1 : if and only if

           V2 > V1 AND (V2 - V1) <= 2**(N-1)

           OR

           V1 > V2 AND (V1 - V2) > 2**(N-1)

     3.  V1 > V2 : otherwise.
```
Shouldn't this include cases for if either V1 or V2 is the Null Map-Version?

### Section 6.1, paragraph 0
```
  6.1.  The Null Map-Version
```
It might have been cleaner to actually define a one-bit "Null
Map-Version" flag and use an 11-bit number space, instead of
overloading the 0x0000 version. That would have eliminated the
need for a lot of special-casing in the arithmetic.

### Inclusive language

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   `unacceptable`, `inapplicable`, `revoked`, `rescinded`

## Nits

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.

### Boilerplate

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".

### Grammar/style

#### Section 6.1, paragraph 5
```
C Map-Cache for the source EID is up to date. If one or both of the above pre
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^
```
It appears that hyphens are missing in the adjective "up-to-date".

#### "A.1.", paragraph 2
```
 LISP Domain A is able to check whether or not the PITR is using the latest m
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Consider shortening this phrase to just "whether". It is correct though if you
mean "regardless of whether".

#### "A.2.1.", paragraph 2
```
 the Proxy-ETR is able to check whether or not the mapping has changed. A.3.
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Consider shortening this phrase to just "whether". It is correct though if you
mean "regardless of whether".

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool