Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-terminology-03
review-ietf-lsr-ospf-terminology-03-secdir-lc-leiba-2023-04-20-00

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.