Mike Bishop has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-31: 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-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # IESG review of draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-31 CC @MikeBishop ## Comments ### Inconsistent reference Both `[MEF70.2]` and `[MEF-70.2]` are referenced; presumably they are the same? ## 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. ### Inclusive language 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` * Terms `native` and `natively`; alternatives might be `built-in`, `fundamental`, `ingrained`, `intrinsic`, `original` ### Boilerplate Document still refers to the "Simplified BSD License", which was corrected in the TLP on September 21, 2021. It should instead refer to the "Revised BSD License". ### Uncited references Uncited references: `[BCP195]` and `[RFC5246]`. ### Outdated references Reference `[RFC5246]` to `RFC5246`, which was obsoleted by `RFC8446` (this may be on purpose). The title of the reference says TLS 1.3, but RFC5246 is TLS 1.2. ### Grammar/style #### Section 3.1.3, paragraph 4 ``` providing the installer with a pre-configured USB flash drive containing the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` Do not mix variants of the same word ("pre-configure" and "preconfigure") within a single text. #### Section 7, paragraph 1 ``` April 1998. [RFC2332] J. Luciani, et al, "NBMA Next Hop Resolution Protocol ^^^^^ ``` A period is misplaced or missing. (This applies to multiple references.) #### Section 8, paragraph 4 ``` ct 2023. 11. Acknowledgments Acknowledgements to Gunter van de Velde, Andrew ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` Do not mix variants of the same word ("acknowledgement" and "acknowledgment") within a single text. _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
