IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alanna Paloma <apaloma@amsl.com> Mon, 12 September 2022 21:20 UTC

Return-Path: <apaloma@amsl.com>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF1A6C1524A6; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 14:20:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8vVq-VOHUs-K; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 14:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c8a.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 731F3C1524A9; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 14:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59B744243EF8; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 14:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3lqMa_bWZbgJ; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 14:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from amss-mbp.attlocal.net (unknown [IPv6:2600:1700:bac0:1070:591e:4641:a0a7:68a2]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E0161424B440; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 14:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Alanna Paloma <apaloma@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <DE3145D3-FBEC-4676-927E-4A17C5BF8746@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2022 14:20:05 -0700
Cc: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, Albert Cabellos <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Vince Fuller <vince.fuller@gmail.com>, David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net>, Darrel Lewis <darlewis@cisco.com>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, lisp-ads@ietf.org, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A772CA7B-EC6C-4FF9-924B-BB56AA090D5C@amsl.com>
References: <E1F1EF68-685D-445E-B39A-671DA3BA4E4D@gigix.net> <39FA2ABB-CC98-40D7-B40E-99301DA36997@gmail.com> <E211D151-FB7E-4460-820A-F43DC013519E@amsl.com> <CAMMESsyDX5H3xpazyCesVFrMRO083OARGSdv0YAWDX3n6MSYtA@mail.gmail.com> <C306F31C-9E99-4D59-BDCC-AA6E8237159E@amsl.com> <DE3145D3-FBEC-4676-927E-4A17C5BF8746@gmail.com>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/I61U-vVtzMdJ13k6MBfcUga7yU0>
Subject: Re: [auth48] [C381] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9300 <draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-38> for your review
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2022 21:20:10 -0000

Hi Dino,

Thank you for your reply. We have noted you approval on the AUTH48 status page. 

Note that we have updated two instances of “echo-nonce-request packets” to “echo-nonce request packets”, as well as two instances of “echo-nonce-request-state” to “echo-nonce-request state”. Please review to make sure we interpreted your suggested updates correctly.

We will await approvals from the remaining authors prior to moving forward with the publication process.

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)
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9300-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff diff between last version and this)
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9300-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between last version and this)

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

Thank you,
RFC Editor/ap

> On Sep 9, 2022, at 12:00 PM, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9300-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes)
> 
> I just reviewed this diff. Here are some comments:
> 
>> <PastedGraphic-13.png>
> 
> The feature is "echo-nonce" and when one sends a request packet it should state "… which echo-nonce request packets are sent …". And the state is called "echo-nonce state". So replace the last two occurences.
> 
>> <PastedGraphic-14.png>
> 
> Chnage to "… MUST NOT use the LSB field, when …".
> 
> Other than the 2 comments, I approve the rest of your changes. Thanks so much for the huge effort!
> 
> Dino
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email