Re: [auth48] [C381] AUTH48 cluster questions: AUTH48: RFCs-to-be 9299 - 9306

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

> Greetings all,
> 
> While reviewing this cluster of documents*, please reply regarding the 
> questions below regarding consistency across the cluster.  These questions 
> are in addition to the document-specific questions that have been sent.  
> Your reply will likely impact two or more of the documents in the cluster, 
> so please discuss as necessary, and let us know the group decision.  (You 
> have the option of updating the edited XML files accordingly, if you are so 
> inclined.)  We will wait to hear from you before continuing with the 
> publication process.

I believe any reference to a data structure, packet type, or fields in a packet should be capitalized to distinguish it. My comments so far have been consistent with that convention. So I will comment the same way below.

> 1) The following terms were used inconsistently in this cluster.
> We updated to use the latter forms.  Please let us know any
> objections.
> 
> map-cache / Map-Cache

Map-Cache

> RLOC-probe / RLOC/Probe (noun)
>  (per much more common usage in this cluster) *
> 
>  * Please note, however, that RFC 6830 uses "RLOC-probe".
> 
> RLOC probing / RLOC-probing / RLOC-Probing

An RLOC-Probe is a noun, RLOC-probing is a verb by "sending an RLOC-Probe". I think we should keep everything the way it is and just spell out as "RLOC-Probe" and "RLOC-Probing".

> 2) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used 
> inconsistently.  Please review these occurrences and let us know
> how/if they may be made consistent.  
> 
> the Authentication Data vs. the authentication data (used generally
>   in running text)

Authentication Data

> echo-nonce vs. Echo-nonce vs. Echo-Nonce vs. echo nonce (in running text)

Echo-Nonce

> encapsulated Map-Request (draft-ietf-lisp-sec) vs.
>   Encapsulated Map-Request (draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis,
>   draft-ietf-lisp-sec (1 instance in Section 6.7))

Encapsulated Map-Request

> EID-prefix vs. EID-Prefix vs. EID prefix

EID-Prefix

> EID record vs. EID-record (in text)

EID-Record

> RLOC record vs. RLOC-record (in text)

RLOC-Recort

> EID-to-RLOC cache (draft-ietf-lisp-sec) vs.
>   EID-to-RLOC Cache (draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis)

All occurences should say just "Map-Cache" or "EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache".

> locator(s) vs. Locator(s) (used more generally)

Locator(s)

> locator address vs. Locator address
>   (i.e., "each Locator address" in draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis but
>    "locator address" used generally in draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis)

Locator Address

>   Do these instances all mean "Routing Locator address"?

Yes, they do. And you can change all occurences of "locator address" to "Routing Locator Address".

> longest-match (draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis) vs.
>   longest match (draft-ietf-lisp-sec)

longest-match

> mapping system vs. Mapping System

Mapping System

> RLOC-set (draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis) vs.
>   RLOC set (draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis, draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis)

RLOC-Set

> Email for Vince Fuller:
> =======================
> [e-mail]
> [e-mail]

Vince's information and affliation is in RFC 9300. He provided it during IESG review.

Dino