Hi Lars, > On May 25, 2023, at 2:57 AM, Lars Eggert via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> > wrote: > > Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-terminology-08: 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-ospf-terminology/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-terminology-07 > > CC @larseggert > > Thanks to Gyan S. Mishra for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review > (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/nivmH8c3YlgBr7JSoG7isGH1Vgo). > > ## Comments > > ### DOWNREFs > > DOWNREF `[RFC5243]` from this Proposed Standard to Informational `RFC5243`. > (For IESG discussion. It seems this DOWNREF was not mentioned in the Last Call > and also seems to not appear in the DOWNREF registry.) > > DOWNREF `[RFC5614]` from this Proposed Standard to Experimental `RFC5614`. > (For > IESG discussion. It seems this DOWNREF was not mentioned in the Last Call and > also seems to not appear in the DOWNREF registry.) > > DOWNREF `[RFC4811]` from this Proposed Standard to Informational `RFC4811`. > (For IESG discussion. It seems this DOWNREF was not mentioned in the Last Call > and also seems to not appear in the DOWNREF registry.)
We want to keep these down references and update these documents as well. I don’t know what the DOWNREF registry is. > > ## 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 6, paragraph 1 > ``` > and all instances of "Slave" will be rename to "Follower". 7. Update to RFC > ^^^^^^^^^ > ``` > There may an error in the verb form "be rename". Yes, this should be “be renamed”. I’ve fixed in the -09 version so it doesn’t get lost although the RFC Editor would most likely have found it. Thanks, Acee > > ## 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 > > > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
