Re: [auth48] [C381] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9300 <draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-38> for your review

[Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>]

Authors and *Alvaro,

*Alvaro - As the AD, please review and approve of the added and updated key words in Sections 4, 4.1, 4.2, 5, and 7.1 in the diff file below.
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9300-auth48diff.html

Authors - Thank you for your replies. We have updated as requested. 

Note that one query remains unanswered. Please clarify which form of the following terms you prefer to use.

> b) The following terms appear to be used inconsistently in this
> document.  Please let us know which form is preferred.
> 
> a Nonce / a nonce (e.g., "a nonce", "a Nonce value")
> 
> ICMP Unreachable / ICMPv4 ICMP Unreachable / ICMPv4 Unreachable

The files have been posted here (please refresh):
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9300.txt
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9300.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9300.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9300.xml

The relevant diff files are posted here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9300-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9300-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 changes)

Please review the document carefully as documents do not change once published as RFCs.

We will await any further changes you may have and approvals from each author and *Alvaro prior to moving forward in the publication process.

Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9300

Thank you,
RFC Editor/ap

> On Sep 8, 2022, at 9:13 AM, Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
>> Since this document does not discuss other proposals we can simplify to:
>>  
>> Any references to an EID in this document will refer to a LISP EID.
> 
> That’s fine. 
> 
>>> 
>>>> 30) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online 
>>>> Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> 
>>>> and let us know if any changes are needed.  For example, please consider
>>>> whether the following should be updated: black hole and native. 
>>>> 
>>>> In addition, consider whether "traditional" should be updated. It may be 
>>>> ambiguous as it is subjective. 
>>>> -->
>>> 
>>> Do whatever is standard. I don't understand what you want us to do exactly.
>> 
>> Looking at this document we can do the following:
>> 
>> Replace “traditional” with “commonly used”
> 
> That is fine. 
> 
>> Replace “native” with “innate"
> 
> No keep native. This is very important. We are referring to native forwarding versus overlay forwarding. 
> 
>> Replace “ICMP black holes” with “ICMP packet losses”
> 
> Fine. 
> 
>> 
>> Sounds reasonable?
> 
> Yes - all but keep native. 
> 
> Dino