Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9302 <draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-14> for your review

[Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>]

Hi Luigi,

Thank you for your reply. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9302

You may track the AUTH48 progress of all documents in C381 at:
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C381

Best regards,
RFC Editor/ap

> On Sep 23, 2022, at 1:36 AM, Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Looks good to me.
> 
> Thank you very much for your excellent work for the whole cluster.
> 
> Ciao
> 
> L.
> 
>> On 23 Sep 2022, at 02:40, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Authors,
>> 
>> We have updated the files per Dino’s response to the cluster-wide queries, and we have updated Damien’s affiliation information.
>> 
>> Please note that, since we have already received all approvals, we only need 1 author to review the changes and let us know if they are agreeable or if any further changes are needed.
>> 
>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.txt
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.pdf
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.html
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.xml
>> 
>> The relevant diff files are posted here:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 changes)
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff diff between last version and this)
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between last version and this)
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> RFC Editor/ap
>> 
>>> On Sep 14, 2022, at 9:07 AM, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Luigi, Olivier, and Damien,
>>> 
>>> Thank you for your replies. We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9302
>>> 
>>> As this document is part of Cluster C381, you may track the progress of all documents in this cluster through AUTH48 at:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C381
>>> 
>>> We will move this document forward in the publication process once the other necessary documents in the cluster complete AUTH48 as well
>>> 
>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>> 
>>> RFC Editor/ap
>>> 
>>>> On Sep 14, 2022, at 3:18 AM, dsaucez <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hello,
>>>> 
>>>> I am ok with the suggestions as well.
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> 
>>>> Damien Saucez 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 14 Sep 2022, at 10:44, Olivier Bonaventure <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Same for me, I agree with your changes and Luigi’s comments.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Olivier Bonaventure
>>>>> 
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From: Luigi IANNONE <[e-mail]>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 8:51 AM
>>>>> To: Alanna Paloma
>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; Damien Saucez; Olivier Bonaventure; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>>> Subject: RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9302 <draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-14> for your review
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I had a look at the latest diff and it looks all good to me.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for your work.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ciao
>>>>> 
>>>>> L.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, 14 September 2022 00:51
>>>>>> To: Luigi IANNONE <[e-mail]>
>>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9302 <draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-14> for your
>>>>>> review
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Luigi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you for your reply.  We have updated as requested.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.xml
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.txt
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.html
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.pdf
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-auth48diff.html (AUTH48
>>>>>> changes)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further
>>>>>> updates you may have.  Note that we do not make changes once a
>>>>>> document is published as an RFC.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page
>>>>>> below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9302
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>> RFC Editor/ap
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sep 13, 2022, at 4:24 AM, Luigi IANNONE
>>>>>> <luigi.iannone=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thank you very much for this review,
>>>>>>> See comments inline.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 13 September 2022 06:37
>>>>>>>> To: Luigi IANNONE <[e-mail]>;
>>>>>> [e-mail];
>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>>>>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9302 <draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-14> for
>>>>>>>> your review
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Authors,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as
>>>>>>>> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear
>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>> title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] RFC 6834 says the following:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> It is not meant to replace any
>>>>>>>> existing LISP mechanisms but rather to extend them by providing new
>>>>>>>> functionalities.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Should this text indicate that it updates the extensions or
>>>>>>>> functionalities, rather than the mechanisms?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Can be simplified to:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It is not meant to replace any existing LISP mechanism, rather providing
>>>>>> new functionalities.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Better?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>> This document obsoletes RFC 6834 "Locator/ID Separation Protocol
>>>>>>>> (LISP) Map-Versioning", which is the initial experimental
>>>>>>>> specifications of the mechanisms updated by this document.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>> This document obsoletes [RFC6834], which is the initial experimental
>>>>>>>> specifications of the mechanisms updated by this document.
>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> I guess the second is actually new text, which reads better.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 3) <!-- [rfced]  In the following, to what does "it" and "both" refer?
>>>>>>>> Is it "Map-Versioning" or "the information"?  Because there are two
>>>>>>>> uses and the text refers to "both cases", we suggest using updating
>>>>>>>> this text to clearly separate the uses (e.g., perhaps use <ol> or <ul>).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>> When Map-Versioning is used, LISP-encapsulated data packets contain
>>>>>>>> the version number of the two mappings used to select the RLOCs in
>>>>>>>> the outer header (i.e., both source and destination RLOCs).  This
>>>>>>>> information has two uses.  On the one hand, it enables the ETR
>>>>>>>> (Egress Tunnel Router) receiving the packet to know if the ITR
>>>>>>>> (Ingress Tunnel Router) is using the latest mapping version for the
>>>>>>>> destination EID.  If this is not the case, the ETR can directly send
>>>>>>>> a Map-Request containing the updated mapping to the ITR, to notify it
>>>>>>>> of the latest version.  The ETR can also solicit the ITR to trigger a
>>>>>>>> Map-Request to obtain the latest mapping by sending it a Solicit Map-
>>>>>>>> Request (SMR) message.  Both cases are defined in
>>>>>>>> [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].  On the other hand, it enables an ETR
>>>>>>>> receiving such a packet to know if it has in its EID-to-RLOC Map-
>>>>>>>> Cache the latest mapping for the source EID.  If this is not the
>>>>>>>> case, a Map-Request can be sent.
>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> New suggested text:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> When Map-Versioning is used, LISP-encapsulated data packets contain
>>>>>>> the version number of the two mappings used to select the RLOCs in
>>>>>>> the outer header (i.e., both source and destination RLOCs).  This
>>>>>>> information has two uses:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1. Map-Versioning enables the ETR  (Egress Tunnel Router) receiving
>>>>>>>   the packet to know if the ITR (Ingress Tunnel Router) is using the latest
>>>>>>>   mapping version for the destination EID.  If this is not the case, the ETR
>>>>>>>   can directly send a Map-Request containing the updated mapping to
>>>>>>>   the ITR, to notify it of the latest version.  The ETR can also solicit the
>>>>>>>   ITR to trigger a Map-Request to obtain the latest mapping by sending
>>>>>>>   a Solicit Map- Request (SMR) message.  Both options are defined in
>>>>>>>   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2. Map-Versioning enables an ETR  receiving the packet to know if it
>>>>>>>  has in its EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache the latest mapping for the
>>>>>>>  source EID.  If this is not the case, a Map-Request can be sent.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Better?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 4) <!--[rfced] May we update instances of "Dest Map-Version number"
>>>>>>>> to "Destination Map-Version number" to reflect usage in RFC 6834?
>>>>>>>> Note that this document has 2 instances of "Destination Map-Version
>>>>>>>> number" and 14 instances of "Dest Map-Version number".
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>> Dest Map-Version number:  Map-Version of the mapping in the EID-to-
>>>>>>>> RLOC Map-Cache used by the ITR to select the RLOC present in the
>>>>>>>> "Destination Routing Locator" field of the outer IP header of LISP-
>>>>>>>> encapsulated packets (Section 7.1).
>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Actually should be the other way around, changing the two instances of
>>>>>> "Destination Map-Version Number: to "Dest Map-Version Number". The use
>>>>>> of "Dest Map-Version Number" has been chosen to be inline with the figure
>>>>>> 1 throughout the document.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we update this text as follows?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>> The ordering enables reacting differently to
>>>>>>>> "older" and "newer" Map-Version number, discarding the packet in the
>>>>>>>> former case and triggering a Map-Request in the latter (see Section 7
>>>>>>>> for further details).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>>>> The ordering enables different reactions to
>>>>>>>> "older" and "newer" Map-Version numbers, whereby "older" numbers
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> discarded and "newer" numbers trigger Map-Requests (see Section 7
>>>>>>>> for further details).
>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yes. It reads better.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] Do you want to use superscript (<sup>) here?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>>   V2 > V1 AND (V2 - V1) <= 2**(12-1)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>    OR
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>    V1 > V2 AND (V1 - V2) > 2**(12-1)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> <sup> would display as follows in the text:
>>>>>>>>    V2 > V1 AND (V2 - V1) <= 2^(12-1)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>    OR
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>    V1 > V2 AND (V1 - V2) > 2^(12-1)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> (12-1) would display as superscript in HTML and PDF.
>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yes, good idea.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] Is it the LISP site that assigns a new Map-Version number?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>> The main idea of using Map-Version numbers is that whenever there is
>>>>>>>> a change in the mapping (e.g., adding/removing RLOCs, a change in the
>>>>>>>> weights due to Traffic Engineering policies, or a change in the
>>>>>>>> priorities) or a LISP site realizes that one or more of its own RLOCs
>>>>>>>> are not reachable anymore from a local perspective (e.g., through
>>>>>>>> IGP, or policy changes) the LISP site updates the mapping, also
>>>>>>>> assigning a new Map-Version number.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>>>> The main idea of using Map-Version numbers is that whenever there is
>>>>>>>> a change in the mapping (e.g., adding/removing RLOCs, a change in the
>>>>>>>> weights due to Traffic Engineering policies, or a change in the
>>>>>>>> priorities) or a LISP site realizes that one or more of its own RLOCs
>>>>>>>> are no longer reachable from a local perspective (e.g., through IGP
>>>>>>>> or policy changes), the LISP site updates the mapping and also assigns
>>>>>>>> a new Map-Version number.
>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The suggested text is OK.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Is mapping intended to be singular or plural here?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>> To this end simple measures can be
>>>>>>>> taken, like updating a mapping only when all active traffic is using
>>>>>>>> the latest version, or waiting sufficient time to be sure that
>>>>>>>> mapping in LISP caches expire, which means waiting at least as much
>>>>>>>> as the mapping Time-To-Live (as defined in
>>>>>>>> [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>>>> To this end, simple measures can be taken, like
>>>>>>>> updating a mapping only when all active traffic is using the latest
>>>>>>>> version, or waiting a sufficient amount of time to be sure that the
>>>>>>>> mapping in LISP caches expires, which means waiting at least as long
>>>>>>>> as the mapping Time To Live (TTL) (as defined in [RFC9301]).
>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Singular is correct.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing this sentence.  Should
>>>>>>>> the second instance of "ignoring the Source Map-Version number" be
>>>>>> deleted?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>> The ETR checks only the Dest Map-Version number, ignoring the Source
>>>>>>>> Map-Version number as specified in the final sentence of Section 7.2,
>>>>>>>> ignoring the Source Map-Version number.
>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yes, delete the second instance.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 10) <!-- [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.
>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Nothing to change IMO.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Ciao
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> L.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> RFC Editor
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Sep 12, 2022, at 9:33 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Updated 2022/09/12
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 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/rfc9302.xml
>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.html
>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.pdf
>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.txt
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Diff file of the text:
>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-diff.html
>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-rfcdiff.html (side by
>>>>>>>> side)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Diff of the XML:
>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-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/rfc9302.original.v2v3.xml
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
>>>>>>>> only:
>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.form.xml
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Tracking progress
>>>>>>>> -----------------
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9302
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> RFC Editor
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> RFC9302 (draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-14)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Title            : Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning
>>>>>>>> Author(s)        : L. Iannone, D. Saucez, O. Bonaventure
>>>>>>>> WG Chair(s)      : Joel M. Halpern, Luigi Iannone
>>>>>>>> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>