IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [auth48] [C336] [AD] RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9299 <draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-15> for your review

Alanna Paloma <apaloma@amsl.com> Thu, 15 September 2022 00:37 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 02B24C14CF01; Wed, 14 Sep 2022 17:37:11 -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 NTo-NToikT1t; Wed, 14 Sep 2022 17:37:06 -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 8BD27C14CEFC; Wed, 14 Sep 2022 17:37:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 597244243EFA; Wed, 14 Sep 2022 17:37:06 -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 rFQpktGKn9_u; Wed, 14 Sep 2022 17:37:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from amss-mbp.attlocal.net (unknown [IPv6:2600:1700:bac0:1070:ed21:bf72:5df5:979c]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0623A4243EF9; Wed, 14 Sep 2022 17:37:05 -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: <CAMMESsykBb0YWH-EhysA7zPArm2SNyFi-edM-dawsryqTQigjA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2022 17:37:05 -0700
Cc: Albert CABELLOS <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, lisp-ads@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1AD43F1A-F344-40F7-8167-2E68E26FB7BF@amsl.com>
References: <20220907050157.B644B4C29E@rfcpa.amsl.com> <CAHS_mjH+ni0oqNjqMVn6Vp+Kri2WxjiQz0FyFJgvXJeUZ0-veA@mail.gmail.com> <706BA4B5-7F03-415C-B38C-A2A7F13430DC@gigix.net> <CAMMESsykBb0YWH-EhysA7zPArm2SNyFi-edM-dawsryqTQigjA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>, Albert Cabellos <alberto.cabellos@upc.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/U7lJhSRQceE51AYyfn9__jdxTog>
Subject: Re: [auth48] [C336] [AD] RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9299 <draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-15> 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: Thu, 15 Sep 2022 00:37:11 -0000

Hi Albert, Luigi, and *Alvaro (AD), 

Thank you for your replies. We have updated the files as requested. Note that, per Luigi’s suggestion, we have replaced “natively” with “as-is” and “native” with “original”.

*Alvaro, as the AD, please review and approve the changes to the text in Section 6 in the diff file below.
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9299-auth48diff.html

Note that we did not make any further changes to “at the time of this writing”; if this phrasing should be removed (3 instances), please let us know.

The files have been posted here (please refresh):
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9299.txt
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9299.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9299.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9299.xml

The relevant diff files are posted here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9299-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9299-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 of the updated files 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/rfc9299

Thank you,
RFC Editor/ap

> On Sep 14, 2022, at 8:08 AM, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On September 14, 2022 at 9:18:23 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote:
> 
> 
>> This may lead confusion with the publication date.
>> What is we add: “… time of this writing (Editor’s Note: 2015)…”
>> 
>> What do you think?
> 
> I think that would lead to more confusion as the published RFC is
> intended to be current.
> 
> Has anything changed since 2015?  If not, "at the time of this
> writing" is still accurate (and no change is required).  If things
> have changed, we need to update the text.
> 
> Alvaro.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email