Subject: [Ecrit] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-18: (with COMMENT)

From: Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2022 05:37:14 -0800

Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-18: 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-ecrit-similar-location/

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

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

 * Term "invalid"; alternatives might be "not valid", "unenforceable", "not
   binding", "inoperative", "illegitimate", "incorrect", "improper",
   "unacceptable", "inapplicable", "revoked", "rescinded".

Thanks to Russ Housley for their General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/mSoW1geq28l0DgXA32V6cZz01fQ).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Section 4. , paragraph 1, nit:
>  supposed to be; it is guessing. Therefore the correct location may or may n
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Therefore".

These URLs in the document can probably be converted to HTTPS:
 * http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml
 * http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema
 * http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic10.dtd

---

From: "Randall Gellens" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2022 10:50:37 -0800

On 1 Mar 2022, at 5:37, Lars Eggert via Datatracker wrote:

> Please refer to 
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

Is the concern specifically with the term "invalid," presumably because 
it's a homograph for the word "invalid" referencing someone with a 
chronic debilitating condition? That is, the term "valid" is fine? If 
so, "not valid" might be OK, but we use the LoST protocol element 
<invalid>.

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2022 09:29:44 +0200

Hi,

On 2022-3-2, at 20:50, Randall Gellens <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Is the concern specifically with the term "invalid," presumably because it's a homograph for the word "invalid" referencing someone with a chronic debilitating condition? That is, the term "valid" is fine?

I believe so.

> If so, "not valid" might be OK, but we use the LoST protocol element <invalid>.

And that is probably a good reason to keep the term.

I was raising these as an opportunity for the authors to consider if terminology improvements could be made - that's all I was asking for.

Thanks,
Lars