Re: [Lsr] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis-04: (with COMMENT)

[Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>]

> On May 25, 2023, at 10:34 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Lars -
> 
> Thanx for the review.
> Responses inline - though I have to say your section references are a "little bit off" - not sure why.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 11:24 PM
>> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis-04: (with
>> COMMENT)
>> 
>> Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis-04: 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-lsr-rfc8920bis/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis-03
>> 
>> CC @larseggert
>> 
>> Thanks to Roni Even for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
>> (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-
>> art/cC3DuuZVG_NAjLDNQMr_P5B14E8).
>> 
>> ## 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.
>> 
>> ### Grammar/style
>> 
>> #### Section 12.3.2, paragraph 1
>> ```
>> ications. It is, however, RECOMMENDED to advertise all link attributes for RS
>>                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> ```
>> The verb "RECOMMENDED" is used with the gerund form.
>> 
> [LES:] I guess you mean Section 12.3.4. But AFAIK "recommended" is an adjective - not a verb.
> In any case I prefer to leave this to the RFC Editor.
> 
>> #### Section 14.1, paragraph 1
>> ```
>> ch they MUST NOT be used. A new sub-section discussing the use of zero-
>> lengt
>>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^
>> ```
>> This word is normally spelled as one.
>> 
> [LES:] I guess you mean Section 15. 
> Noted.
> 
>> #### Section 16.1, paragraph 9
>> ```
>> C 8920 included the following acknowledgements: Thanks to Chris Bowers for
>> h
>>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> ```
>> Do not mix variants of the same word ("acknowledgement" and
>> "acknowledgment")
>> within a single text.
>> 
> [LES:] Ack
> 
> I will make the spelling corrections in the next update.

Please note that RFCs should use US English as opposed British English. See section 3.1 of RFC 7322. 

Thanks,
Acee



> 
>    Les
> 
>> ## 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
>> 
>> 
>