[lisp] Mahesh Jethanandani's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-11: (with COMMENT)

[Mahesh Jethanandani via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Mahesh Jethanandani has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-11: 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-name-encoding/



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

"Abstract", paragraph 1
>    This draft defines how to use the AFI=17 Distinguished Names in LISP.

Would agree with some of the other reviewers on the brevity of the Abstract.

The IANA review of this document seems to not have concluded yet.

DOWNREF [RFC8060] from this Proposed Standard to Experimental RFC8060. (For
IESG discussion. It seems this DOWNREF was not mentioned in the Last Call and
also seems to not appear in the DOWNREF registry.)

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

 * Term "traditional"; alternatives might be "classic", "classical", "common",
   "conventional", "customary", "fixed", "habitual", "historic",
   "long-established", "popular", "prescribed", "regular", "rooted",
   "time-honored", "universal", "widely used", "widespread"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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) so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Section 9.1, paragraph 2
> hat plan to switch to using a reliable transport to hold registrations first
>                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply
"reliable transport".

Section 9.2, paragraph 1
> m is distributed, the ETR requires to have one specific mapping ready to be r
>                                    ^^^^^^^
Did you mean "having"? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice,
"require" + "to" takes an object, usually a pronoun.

Section 9.2, paragraph 1
> hat they can switch to using a reliable transport. This can also lead to gene
>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply
"reliable transport".

Section 9.2, paragraph 4
> unnel Router (RTRs) as they appear in an locator-set. 9.4. DNs for Self-Docu
>                                       ^^
Use "a" instead of "an" if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound,
e.g. "a sentence", "a university".