> On Apr 20, 2023, at 11:36 PM, Barry Leiba via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Barry Leiba > Review result: Has Nits > > I understand why it’s easier to do a single document with a batch update, but I > question whether anyone will pay attention to it. Still, until the relevant > documents are organically replaced and these changes are actually folded into > them, this will serve as a placeholder and reminder of the changes that need to > be made. > > (As a side issue, I wonder if, as we move toward incorporating verified errata > reports into the display of RFCs, it might make sense to file these also as > errata reports, as this update will not show in such a display.) > > I have only one substantive comment: > > — Section 8 — > > Packet reception and dropping on an > interface not configured with the packet AF, e.g., IPv4 is > possible because a router that doesn't support this specification > can still be included in the SPF calculated path as long as it > establishes adjacencies using the Instance ID corresponding to > the IPv4 AF. > > In the conversion away from “black holing”, this sentence became much longer > and somewhat convoluted. I urge you to do some further rework, including > splitting it into two sentences for clarity. I split into two sentences as the example was added due to another comment. Thanks, Acee > > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
