Re: [auth48] [C381] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9301 <draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-31> for your review

[Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dino and Alvaro,

Thank you for your replies. We have updated the files accordingly and noted Alvaro’s approval on the AUTH48 status page.

Apologies for the confusion. In the text denoted by “Original” in the query below, should a section number be included with the citation for clarity?

> 21) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.8:  This sentence is difficult to follow, as
> we only see one instance of the word "procedure" (used in the
> singular) in draft-ietf-lisp-sec and could not find the relevant
> information.  Please clarify for readers where in draft-ietf-lisp-sec
> (perhaps a section number) this information can be found.
> 
> Original:
> S:    This is the Security bit.  When set to 1, the field following
>      the 'Reserved' field will have the following Authentication
>      Data format and follow the procedures from [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]. -->

Additionally, please note that we have updated the text to use “LISP Packet Type” (capitalized), per input from the authors of RFC-to-be 9304.

The files have been posted here (please refresh):
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9301.xml
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9301.txt
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9301.html
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9301.pdf

The relevant diff files have been posted here:
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9301-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9301-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes)
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9301-rfcdiff.html (changes side by side)
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9301-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff diff between last version and this)
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9301-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between last version and this)

For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9301

Thank you,
RFC Editor/ap

> On Sep 19, 2022, at 5:00 PM, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On September 19, 2022 at 12:35:28 PM, Alanna Paloma wrote:
> 
> 
> Alanna:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> 
>> Luigi and *Alvaro (AD) - This query requires your review/approval:
> 
>>>>  14) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.4:
>>>> 
>>>>  [AD] Version 30 was approved; we were notified that version 31 was
>>>> available earlier this year. Please review and let us know if you approve
>>>> the new text.
>>>> The update can easily be seen here:
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-31.txt
> 
> Yes, these changes are approved.  They were made in coordination with
> rfc6834bis.
> 
> 
>>>> Authors, we could not locate the indicated procedures in draft-ietf-lisp-
>>>> 6834bis.
>>>> Please clarify for readers where in draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis (perhaps a
>>>> section number) this information can be found.
>>>> 
>>>>  Original:
>>>> Map-Version Number: When this 12-bit value in an EID-record of a
>>>> Map-Reply message is non-zero, follow the procedures in
>>>> [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis] for details. -->
>>> 
>>> Luigi needs to answer this question.
> 
> The reference is not to a specific set of procedures, but to
> rfc6834bis in general.
> 
> Suggestion>
>    Map-Version Number: When this 12-bit value in an EID-record of
>    a Map-Reply message is non-zero; see [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis] for
>    details.
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Alvaro.
>