Eliot,
Inclusive language (and the other ten rfced comments) were all fully
dealt with inside the XML that I first sent (8 Apr 26), and highlighted
in the covering email.
Since then, the rfced has deemed all but three of these eleven
conversations to have closed (incl inclusive language), so deleted them
from the XML.
The others (as listed by the RFCED, incl DOCSIS URLs) are awaiting
Greg's response on behalf of CableLabs, who is back from vac today. I
was just making sure the copyright one was added to this list for Greg,
'cos it seemed to have been omitted. I wasn't expecting or needing a reply.
All three URLs state "DOCSIS 3.1 Version Ixx or later", where xx in each
case was the first version of that spec to introduce LLD.
Bob
On 11/04/2026 13:01, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) wrote:
Ok. What is left is the issue around inclusive language and the
copyright issue. Both need to be taken seriously. I will address the
inclusive language and one other issue in this message. See a
follow-up on the copyright issue.
On the use of the word "Native", because MULPI makes use of this
language, and because there is a note as to why the term is used, I
think it's okay in this instance, and would request no additional changes.
That said, I do note two issues I would like the authors to address at
this time:
* the 3.1 links are broken in the references.
* at least some 4.0 docs (MULPI in particular) have since issued,
and they should be reviewed prior to this document's publication.
It's not like CableLabs publishes a new version every day, and
presumably they would appreciate us using their latest, absent
good cause.
I will return to the copyright issue in a separate message.
Eliot
--
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoehttp://bobbriscoe.net/
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
