Update to OSPF Terminology
draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-terminology-09

# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-terminology-06
CC @ekline

## Nits

### S2

* s/froming/forming/

### S5

* s/when referring the/when referencing the/

  or

  s/when referring the/when referring to the/

### S7

* s/Addiitionally/Additionally/

Thank you for clearing my discuss.

You could delete Section 1 as it's a verbatim copy of the Abstract.

I am a little puzzled by a standalone document that changes these words. Implementers are still forced to read the original RFCs this document updates and the original words are all over the place in those documents. It would have made more sense to me to incorporate these new words in bis documents.
I agree with Eric that IANA should keep the old name in a note for clarification.

Thank you to Barry Leiba for the SECDIR review.

I find interesting that this update to be more inclusive has non-inclusive abstract and introduction... There are more than 200 countries (if not mistaken) and readers can genuinely wonder which one is referred by "National Institute of Standards and Technology" (of course, most readers knowing the IETF will guess the NIST of the USA).

I also wonder whether IANA should keep the old name of the L bit in a footnote or so.

# 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.)

## 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".

## 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