Re: [auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9324 <draft-ietf-sidrops-rov-no-rr-08> for your review

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 2:12 PM, Rebecca VanRheenen <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Randy and *AD,
>
> Randy, thank you for the reply. We have updated the document. All of our
> questions have now been addressed. Please contact us with any further
> updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. We will
> await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the publication
> process.
>
> *Warren, as AD, please review and approve the added text in Section 2.
> This change is best viewed in this diff file: https://www.rfc-editor.org/
> authors/rfc9324-auth48diff.html.
>


LGTM.
W



> Updated XML file:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9324.xml
>
> Updated output files:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9324.txt
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9324.pdf
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9324.html
>
> Diff file showing changes made during AUTH48:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9324-auth48diff.html
>
> Diff files showing all changes:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9324-diff.html https://www.
> rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9324-rfcdiff.html (side-by-side diff)
>
> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.
> rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9324
>
> Thank you,
>
> RFC Editor/rv
>
> On Dec 7, 2022, at 11:14 AM, Randy Bush <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> rebecca:
>
> What do you think about adding the following at the end of Section 2? Or
> is another location in the document better? (Note that we will ask the AD
> to approve added text.)
>
> Note that the term "RPKI-based Route Origin Validation" in this document
> means the same as the term "Prefix Origin Validation" used in [RFC6811].
>
> fine
>
> 8) <!-- [rfced] Terminology
>
> a) We note inconsistencies in the terms listed below. We chose the form on
> the right. Please let us know any objections.
>
> Route Server vs. route server Note: The lowercase form is used in RFC 7947
> and is more common in the RFC Series.
>
> BGP Speaker vs. BGP speaker
>
> b) We see instances of both "Route Refresh" (capitalized) and "route
> refresh" (lowercase) in the document. Should the capitalization be
> consistent? Please review and let us know if any updates are needed.
> -->
>
> you seem to favor lower case, so fine
>
> randy
>
>