Re: [auth48] [C381] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9304 <draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-03> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Dear RFC Editor, all, 

> 1) <!--[rfced] Throughout the text, "LISP Packet Types", "LISP
> Packet types", and "LISP packet types" are used inconsistently.
> Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how these may
> be made consistent.
> -->  [CJ] "LISP Packet Types" is the preferred option.

This works for me as well. I trust that this change will also be reflected in RFC9301. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : JACQUENET Christian INNOV/NET
> <[e-mail]>
> Envoyé : samedi 17 septembre 2022 09:33
> À : [e-mail]; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
> <[e-mail]>
> Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Objet : RE: [C381] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9304 <draft-ietf-lisp-
> rfc8113bis-03> for your review
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Please see inline.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 1) <!--[rfced] Throughout the text, "LISP Packet Types", "LISP
> Packet types", and "LISP packet types" are used inconsistently.
> Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how these may
> be made consistent.
> -->  [CJ] "LISP Packet Types" is the preferred option.
> 
> 
> 2) <!-- [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. Note that our script
> did not flag any words in particular, but this should still be
> reviewed as a best practice.
> -->[CJ]  I have reviewed the "Inclusive Language" portion and also
> the NIST Table that provides examples of potentially biased
> language and I believe there is no need to change the text from
> this perspective.
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> [CJ] Thank you!
> 
> Christian.
> 
> RFC Editor/ap/ar
> 
> 
> On Sep 16, 2022, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> *****IMPORTANT*****
> 
> Updated 2022/09/16
> 
> RFC Author(s):
> --------------
> 
> Instructions for Completing AUTH48
> 
> Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed
> and approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an
> RFC.
> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
> 
> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before
> providing your approval.
> 
> Planning your review
> ---------------------
> 
> Please review the following aspects of your document:
> 
> *  RFC Editor questions
> 
>   Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
>   that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
>   follows:
> 
>   <!-- [rfced] ... -->
> 
>   These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
> 
> *  Changes submitted by coauthors
> 
>   Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
>   coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you
>   agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
> 
> *  Content
> 
>   Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
>   change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular
> attention to:
>   - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
>   - contact information
>   - references
> 
> *  Copyright notices and legends
> 
>   Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
>   RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
>   (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).
> 
> *  Semantic markup
> 
>   Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements
> of
>   content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that
> <sourcecode>
>   and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at
>   <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
> 
> *  Formatted output
> 
>   Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
>   formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file,
> is
>   reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting
>   limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
> 
> 
> Submitting changes
> ------------------
> 
> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as
> all the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The
> parties
> include:
> 
>   *  your coauthors
> 
>   *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)
> 
>   *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
>      IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
>      responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
> 
>   *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing
> list
>      to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active
> discussion
>      list:
> 
>     *  More info:
>        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-
> announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
> 
>     *  The archive itself:
>        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
> 
>     *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt
> out
>        of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive
> matter).
>        If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that
> you
>        have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
>        [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC
> list and
>        its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
> 
> You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
> 
> An update to the provided XML file
> — OR —
> An explicit list of changes in this format
> 
> Section # (or indicate Global)
> 
> OLD:
> old text
> 
> NEW:
> new text
> 
> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an
> explicit list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
> 
> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes
> that seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text,
> deletion of text, and technical changes.  Information about stream
> managers can be found in the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not
> require approval from a stream manager.
> 
> 
> Approving for publication
> --------------------------
> 
> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email
> stating that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use
> ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see
> your approval.
> 
> 
> Files
> -----
> 
> The files are available here:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9304.xml
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9304.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9304.pdf
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9304.txt
> 
> Diff file of the text:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9304-diff.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9304-rfcdiff.html (side by
> side)
> 
> Diff of the XML:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9304-xmldiff1.html
> 
> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your
> own diff files of the XML.
> 
> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9304.original.v2v3.xml
> 
> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format
> updates
> only:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9304.form.xml
> 
> 
> Tracking progress
> -----------------
> 
> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9304
> 
> Please let us know if you have any questions.
> 
> Thank you for your cooperation,
> 
> RFC Editor
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9304 (draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-03)
> 
> Title            : Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP): Shared
> Extension Message and IANA Registry for Packet Type Allocations
> Author(s)        : M. Boucadair, C. Jacquenet
> WG Chair(s)      : Joel M. Halpern, Luigi Iannone
> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
> 
> 
> Orange Restricted

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.