[Sidrops] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidrops-rov-no-rr-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

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

Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidrops-rov-no-rr-05: Discuss

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-sidrops-rov-no-rr/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-sidrops-rov-no-rr-03

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Paul Kyzivat for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/Qhb_8-Kc5e5QEE47En6NhULHnjI).

## Discuss

### Unclear RFC status
```
  Intended status: Standards Track                            Arrcus, Inc.
```
The datatracker metadata for this document indicated a intended status of
"Internet Standard". I assume this is incorrect and needs to be changed
(probably to "Proposed Standard".)


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

## 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.

### Typos

#### Section 3, paragraph 1
```
-    the received paths aginst the new data.
+    the received paths against the new data.
+                         +
```

### Grammar/style

#### Paragraph 0
```
 metadata for this document indicated a intended status of "Internet Standar
                                      ^
```
Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g.
"an article", "an hour".

#### Section 1, paragraph 1
```
k paths affected by RPKI-based policy so Route Refresh is no longer needed.
                                     ^^^
```
Use a comma before "so" if it connects two independent clauses (unless they are
closely connected and short).

#### Section 4, paragraph 1
```
s, then it MUST issue a route refresh so those alternatives may be evaluated
                                     ^^^
```
Use a comma before "so" if it connects two independent clauses (unless they are
closely connected and short).

## 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