Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-30> for your review
"Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> Fri, 24 February 2023 16:12 UTC
Return-Path: <jaehoon.paul@gmail.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 DFE54C151AE5; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 08:12:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.086
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.086 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HK_NAME_FM_MR_MRS=0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URI_DOTEDU=1.999] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 VrQD1veCJ6g0; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 08:12:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x631.google.com (mail-pl1-x631.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::631]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 A00E9C14CE25; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 08:12:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x631.google.com with SMTP id q11so17551642plx.5; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 08:12:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=tEdfvUDilbdzw1MVgoZ7Iu3t6vr1XLrSZMtNL+nvKHM=; b=XhquL1zdfO+9tgRFfNqmif5mVUZuhNPxGzHdhc+Fp/Dr3W9033HmaQ8ukRKZ3MDgUk K/weeqI6+wpoAFdTINCRzUp7VP42pp8ek5szvx/Pjq4KMposQ9gqhnD+QG38CmZT915I xxp4LA3+U+k5LpPzhpuC8uvOcw6xspNJ5FnvIUzsFy+2L1eZyRwYwzsOfvAh3uGvezcO 2Z1RC4d+/QLpgB9q4WOjAgmsnWD+GzHuLA0MUeVyAfUL/iD8vTOarZXgyaLny0OuFNH7 8MmXGXcQVlc2L0fSFiIdVC6xHpaQq/nW9AT8JRpkMakRQ/6TZMVk/XP7hdRyQTkeQP8U sCNg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=tEdfvUDilbdzw1MVgoZ7Iu3t6vr1XLrSZMtNL+nvKHM=; b=i0wmaQlP02diX1M5wpOVpo1AdRHgjb1MMSI+aOyy9oNC7mamlTPYtSnRW97RNpzcnI 3YNb0uQtkdzDF16usNdLqTDPo5QjrljpbiOegaiv6Xgw4iRIkrDgzyHAKs6lteRPlWWh EtrZ5zn1zHyxetX7HnH7E5qbL453W3lyympa+nCS9Far3honH8HS6/IS8z9ragyyRKQY Ud4pMhK/SgwcwNX/fso4ktajwiQtTijuV3wreawsqMlmH5aIqfH+t/MC8V64NCpLpmzX RB6D7HNke6j9VKxy1yb8p96BzSW331vTu8Xq2bb5d+tkgIrPyQbZplJOo2ocFyCtjNil b5sQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKW6UoGz4FPySCQLzLUsbg766wXg3iaIe8H1DM8k2i5d7Wk2ChQK 9Ny8nNjZM9GcmRQkZhhguGTP3nEYU2hrq0EYWPk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set8dnRhSwf6yd8yCbJZVEHO5l08bworfA1jxnFtpGhbdzrtiAf1v83jOzSMK0/BW23YmQTsCeD+EEYa8NDd2jzU=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:4a4b:b0:233:bada:17b5 with SMTP id lb11-20020a17090b4a4b00b00233bada17b5mr95222pjb.4.1677255134487; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 08:12:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230218071950.7E5314C26B@rfcpa.amsl.com> <CAPK2Dewkrb1b7w5U9+T_5US-WoaAbiBYoeThOLSNYbGRSvefvg@mail.gmail.com> <36143FAC-BB4A-4949-A09C-42BF3352AB2D@amsl.com> <CAPK2Dez3YVGk+JbGMOAh3ANNq3cPHBkqYBX6mynwohNTcqDBYA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPK2DextQBze2tA59sOHdyBQ+Q483vw0fuvRY-a1SLkDT4r9Mg@mail.gmail.com> <2A09F9B9-5EC5-4032-B311-5C37374E6034@amsl.com> <CAPK2DexB5AaU3OaOd+Yxod8kebsP7PJfFS18nmDOWs-Zqwoz8g@mail.gmail.com> <CAPK2Dex5gJcP4BsEnQ41GrrRz1YuOt=t_ESaUnx=r-aggHkv7w@mail.gmail.com> <A4CCC92D-F9B8-465E-A943-D187CCC775C0@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <A4CCC92D-F9B8-465E-A943-D187CCC775C0@amsl.com>
From: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2023 01:12:02 +0900
Message-ID: <CAPK2DeyzTVwMSg-F0Xifcpp1sGNOOzacNC9-aeWi=gwaoqw5Ng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alice Russo <arusso@amsl.com>
Cc: Chris Shen <shenyiwen7@gmail.com>, Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>, "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>, Tae Oh <tomohmail@gmail.com>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, cjbc@it.uc3m.es, ipwave-ads@ietf.org, ipwave-chairs@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007d267405f57464dd"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/cpOvFn5sDSQ1Nw8s2gsu-h2N1S0>
Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-30> 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: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 16:12:23 -0000
Alice, Thanks for your considerations. I will try to finish the proofreading of this RFC this weekend. Best Regards, Paul 2023년 2월 25일 (토) 오전 12:07, Alice Russo <arusso@amsl.com>님이 작성: > Paul, > > Thank you for your mail. Please know that you have as much time as you > need to complete the review of the document. > > Thank you. > RFC Editor/ar > > > On Feb 24, 2023, at 7:55 AM, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < > jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Alice, > > I need more time to proofread the revision. > > Could you allow me more time to let me proofread it > > by the midnight on February 25 in KST? > > > > I was busy with university work and event today. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Best Regards, > > Paul > > > > 2023년 2월 24일 (금) 오전 1:39, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>님이 > 작성: > > Hi Alice, > > Thanks for your quick update. > > I answer your comments inline below with the prefix "=> [PAUL]". > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 1:49 PM Alice Russo <arusso@amsl.com> wrote: > > Paul, > > > > Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document accordingly; > please see the follow-up question below. The revised files are here (please > refresh): > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9365.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9365.txt > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9365.pdf > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9365.xml > > > > This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9365-diff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9365-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > > > This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9365-auth48diff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9365-auth48rfcdiff.html (side > by side) > > > > > > For #14, regarding this sentence in Section 5, may it be updated as > below for readability? > > > > > Original: > > > This relative speed leads the half of the link lifetime between the > > > vehicle and the IP-RSU. > > > > > > Your reply: > > This relative speed leads to the half of the lifetime of the wireless > link > > between the vehicle and the IP-RSU. > > > > Perhaps: > > This relative speed causes the lifetime of the wireless link > > between the vehicle and the IP-RSU to be halved. > > > > => [PAUL] The above Perhaps looks good to me. > > > > FYI, regarding the requested updates for the references: > > - Using the organization element is the preferred syntax when an > organization authored a document, so those changes have not been made. > > - Several updates to add volume and issue numbers were already made in > the edited document. > > - A "web access date" is not included in references within RFCs. > > > > => [PAUL] The above policy looks good to me, but there are many places > to fix in References: > > Could you update the references with the following ones? > > > > - OLD: > > [DFC] > > Jeong, J., Shen, Y., Kim, S., Choe, D., Lee, K., and Y. Kim, "DFC: > Device-free human counting through WiFi fine-grained subcarrier > information", IET Communications, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 337-350, DOI > 10.1049/cmu2.12043, January 2021, <https://doi.org/10.1049/cmu2.12043>. > > > > - NEW: > > [DFC] > > Jeong, J., Shen, Y., Kim, S., Choe, D., Lee, K., and Y. Kim, "DFC: > Device-free human counting through WiFi fine-grained subcarrier > information", IET Communications, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 337-350, DOI > 10.1049/cmu2.12043, February 2021, <https://doi.org/10.1049/cmu2.12043>. > > --- > > > > - OLD: > > [FirstNet] > > "FirstNet Authority: The future of public safety communications", < > https://www.firstnet.gov/>. > > > > - NEW: > > [FirstNet] > > FirstNet Authority, "The future of public safety communications", < > https://www.firstnet.gov/>. > > --- > > > > - OLD: > > [OMNI] > > Templin, F. L., Ed., "Transmission of IP Packets over Overlay Multilink > Network (OMNI) Interfaces", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, > draft-templin-intarea-omni-11, 10 January 2023, < > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-templin-intarea-omni-11>. > > > > - NEW: > > [OMNI] > > Templin, F. L., Ed., "Transmission of IP Packets over Overlay Multilink > Network (OMNI) Interfaces", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, > draft-templin-intarea-omni-25, 15 February 2023, < > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-templin-intarea-omni-25>. > > --- > > - OLD: > > [PARCELS] > > Templin, F. L., Ed., "IP Parcels", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, > draft-templin-intarea-parcels-19, 10 January 2023, < > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-templin-intarea-parcels-19>. > > > > - NEW: > > [PARCELS] > > Templin, F. L., Ed., "IP Parcels and Advanced Jumbos", Work in Progress, > Internet-Draft, draft-templin-intarea-parcels-51, 15 February 2023, < > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-templin-intarea-parcels-51>. > > --- > > > > - OLD: > > [PSCE] > > European Comission, "PSCEurope Public Safety Communications Europe", < > https://www.psc-europe.eu/>. > > > > - NEW: > > [PSCE] > > European Commission, "PSCEurope: Public Safety Communications Europe", < > https://www.psc-europe.eu/>. > > --- > > > > - OLD: > > [SAINT] > > Jeong, J., Jeong, H., Lee, E., Oh, T., and D. H. C. Du, "SAINT: > Self-Adaptive Interactive Navigation Tool for Cloud-Based Vehicular Traffic > Optimization", IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, Volume 65, Issue > 6, DOI 10.1109/TVT.2015.2476958, June 2016, < > https://doi.org/10.1109/TVT.2015.2476958>. > > > > - NEW: > > [SAINT] > > Jeong, J., Jeong, H., Lee, E., Oh, T., and D. H. C. Du, "SAINT: > Self-Adaptive Interactive Navigation Tool for Cloud-Based Vehicular Traffic > Optimization", IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, Volume 65, Issue > 6, pp. 4053-4067, DOI 10.1109/TVT.2015.2476958, June 2016, < > https://doi.org/10.1109/TVT.2015.2476958>. > > --- > > > > - OLD: > > [SAINTplus] > > Shen, Y., Lee, J., Jeong, H., Jeong, J., Lee, E., and D. H. C. Du, > "SAINT+: Self-Adaptive Interactive Navigation Tool+ for Emergency Service > Delivery Optimization", IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation > Systems, Volume 19, Issue 4, DOI 10.1109/TITS.2017.2710881, June 2017, < > https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2017.2710881>. > > > > - NEW: > > [SAINTplus] > > Shen, Y., Lee, J., Jeong, H., Jeong, J., Lee, E., and D. H. C. Du, > "SAINT+: Self-Adaptive Interactive Navigation Tool+ for Emergency Service > Delivery Optimization", IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation > Systems, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp. 1038-1053, DOI 10.1109/TITS.2017.2710881, > April 2018, <https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2017.2710881>. > > --- > > > > - OLD: > > [Truck-Platooning] > > California Partners for Advanced Transportation Technology (PATH), > "Automated Truck Platooning", < > https://path.berkeley.edu/research/connected-and-automated-vehicles/truck-platooning > >. > > > > - NEW: > > [Truck-Platooning] > > California Partners for Advanced Transportation Technology (PATH), > "Truck Platooning", < > https://path.berkeley.edu/research/connected-and-automated-vehicles/truck-platooning > >. > > --- > > > > - OLD: > > [VEHICULAR-MM] > > Jeong, J., Ed., Mugabarigira, B., Shen, Y., and H. Jung, "Vehicular > Mobility Management for IP-Based Vehicular Networks", Work in Progress, > Internet-Draft, draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-mobility-management-08, 25 > July 2022, < > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-mobility-management-08 > >. > > > > - NEW: > > [VEHICULAR-MM] > > Jeong, J., Ed., Mugabarigira, B., Shen, Y., and H. Jung, "Vehicular > Mobility Management for IP-Based Vehicular Networks", Work in Progress, > Internet-Draft, draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-mobility-management-09, 4 > February 2023, < > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-mobility-management-09 > >. > > --- > > > > - OLD: > > [VEHICULAR-ND] > > Jeong, J., Ed., Shen, Y., Kwon, J., and S. Cespedes, "Vehicular Neighbor > Discovery for IP-Based Vehicular Networks", Work in Progress, > Internet-Draft, draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-neighbor-discovery-14, 25 July > 2022, < > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-neighbor-discovery-14 > >. > > > > - NEW: > > [VEHICULAR-ND] > > Jeong, J., Ed., Shen, Y., Kwon, J., and S. Cespedes, "Vehicular Neighbor > Discovery for IP-Based Vehicular Networks", Work in Progress, > Internet-Draft, draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-neighbor-discovery-15, 4 > February 2023, < > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-neighbor-discovery-15 > >. > > --- > > > > - OLD: > > [VIP-WAVE] > > Cespedes, S., Lu, N., and X. Shen, "VIP-WAVE: On the Feasibility of IP > Communications in 802.11p Vehicular Networks", IEEE Transactions on > Intelligent Transportation Systems, Volume 14, Issue 1, DOI > 10.1109/TITS.2012.2206387, March 2013, < > https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2012.2206387>. > > > > - NEW: > > [VIP-WAVE] > > Cespedes, S., Lu, N., and X. Shen, "VIP-WAVE: On the Feasibility of IP > Communications in 802.11p Vehicular Networks", IEEE Transactions on > Intelligent Transportation Systems, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp. 82-97, DOI > 10.1109/TITS.2012.2206387, March 2013, < > https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2012.2206387>. > > --- > > > > > > Please review if any further changes are needed. We will wait to hear > from you again before continuing the publication process. This page shows > the AUTH48 status of your document: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9365 > > > > => [PAUL] I will proofread the current version tomorrow. > > When I am done, I will let you know with possible corrections > > by midnight on February 24 (Friday) in Korean Standard Time (UTC > +9). > > > > Thanks. > > > > Best Regards, > > Paul > > > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/ar > > > > > On Feb 22, 2023, at 10:51 AM, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < > jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Alice, > > > Here are my updates with my revision letters > > > so that you can reflect them on the xml file by yourself. > > > > > > I have used my old xml file to reflect my answers, so > > > you can refer to the attached xml for only your reference. > > > > > > If you need my help, please let me know. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > Paul > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 1:57 PM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < > jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Alice, > > > I will modify the xml file according to your comments and questions > this week (by February 24 in KST). > > > > > > I will also provide you with a revision letter to show how I have > updated the text. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > Paul > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 2:43 AM Alice Russo <arusso@amsl.com> wrote: > > > Paul, > > > Thank you for your mail. Yes; please know that you have the time > needed for the review of the edited document and the questions. It's your > choice whether you update the source file yourself or reply via mail (in > which case, we will update the source file). We will check in with you at > the one-week mark if we haven't heard from you. We'll be here for any > questions or followups on the updates for the document. > > > > > > Thank you. > > > RFC Editor/ar > > > > > > > On Feb 18, 2023, at 3:34 AM, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < > jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi RFC Editor, > > > > I will review your comments and answer them. > > > > Today and tomorrow are the weekend, so I am busy with my > Christianity worship and fellowship. > > > > Could you allow me to finish them by noon (12pm) next Tuesday > (February 21) in Korean time? > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 4:19 PM <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > > > Greetings, > > > > > > > > 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] We note that "IPWAVE" has been expanded as "IP" > > > > (rather than "IPv6") in the past - for example, in the name of > > > > the IETF working group. Is it intentional to use "IPv6" in > > > > this document without modifying the acronym? > > > > > > > > Title and Section 1 contain: > > > > IPv6 Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (IPWAVE) > > > > > > > > vs. RFC 8691 (and the IPWAVE WG page) contains: > > > > IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (IPWAVE) > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) <!-- [rfced] Would you like the terms in Section 2 to be > alphabetized? > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] We had difficulty parsing this sentence, > specifically "at > > > > edge". How should it be updated for clarity? Does "at edge" refer to > > > > "at the edge of the network"? > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > * Edge Computing Device (ECD): It is a computing device (or > server) > > > > at edge for vehicles and vulnerable road users. > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) <!-- [rfced] If LiDAR is the method used by a "LiDAR sensor" or > > > > "LiDAR device" (rather than the device itself), may this definition > > > > be updated as follows, or otherwise? > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > * LiDAR: "Light Detection and Ranging". It is a scanning device > to > > > > measure a distance to an object by emitting pulsed laser light > and > > > > measuring the reflected pulsed light. > > > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > * Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR): This is a method > > > > for measuring a distance to an object by emitting pulsed > > > > laser light and measuring the reflected pulsed light. > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > 6) <!-- [rfced] Should "dot11OCBActivited" be "dot11OCBActivated" > > > > for correct spelling ("i" changed to "a")? > > > > We note that "dot11OCBActivited" is in Section 2 of RFC 8691. > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > * 802.11-OCB: It refers to the mode specified in IEEE Std > > > > 802.11-2016 [IEEE-802.11-OCB] when the MIB attribute > > > > dot11OCBActivited is 'true'. > > > > > > > > Suggested: > > > > * 802.11-OCB: This refers to the mode specified in IEEE Std > > > > 802.11-2016 [IEEE-802.11-OCB] when the MIB attribute > > > > dot11OCBActivated is 'true'. > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > 7) <!-- [rfced] FYI, so that it wouldn't appear that "safe driving" > describes > > > > "avoidance", we updated "safe driving and collision avoidance" to > > > > "driving safely and avoiding collisions". Please let us know if this > > > > isn't agreeable. > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > * Context-aware navigation for safe driving and collision > avoidance > > > > > > > > Current: > > > > * Context-aware navigation for driving safely and avoiding > collisions > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > 8) <!-- [rfced] FYI, for clarity concerning "UAM end systems in > air", we > > > > rephrased this sentence. Please review. > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > A collision avoidance service of UAM end systems in air can be > > > > envisioned as a use case in air vehicular environments > > > > [I-D.templin-ipwave-uam-its]. > > > > > > > > Current: > > > > A service for collision avoidance of in-air UAM end systems is one > > > > possible use case in air vehicular environments [UAM-ITS]. > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > 9) <!-- [rfced] Can only trucks or any type of vehicle use V2V > communication > > > > in this case? If the latter, we suggest replacing "Trucks" with > "Vehicles". > > > > (The preceding sentence is included for context.) > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > Platooning [Truck-Platooning] allows a series (or group) of > vehicles > > > > (e.g., trucks) to follow each other very closely. Trucks can use > V2V > > > > communication in addition to forward sensors in order to maintain > > > > constant clearance between two consecutive vehicles at very short > > > > gaps (from 3 meters to 10 meters). > > > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > Platooning [Truck-Platooning] allows a series (or group) of > vehicles > > > > (e.g., trucks) to follow each other very closely. Vehicles can > use V2V > > > > communication in addition to forward sensors in order to maintain > > > > constant clearance between two consecutive vehicles at very short > > > > gaps (from 3 to 10 meters). > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > 10) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify "accident vehicles"; does it refer to > > > > vehicles in a collision, rather than vehicles responding to a > collision? > > > > > > > > Also, since "IP-RSU" is not a type of network, we suggest rephrasing > > > > the final list. Should it be via "an IP-RSU" or "IP-RSUs" (plural)? > > > > > > > > How may we update this sentence for clarity? > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > The emergency communication between accident vehicles (or > emergency > > > > vehicles) and a TCC can be performed via either IP-RSU, 4G-LTE or > 5G > > > > networks. > > > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > The emergency communication between vehicles in an accident (or > > > > emergency-response vehicles) and a TCC can be performed via > either > > > > an IP-RSU or 4G-LTE or 5G networks. > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > 11) <!-- [rfced] How may this sentence be updated to make the list > > > > items parallel? Also, what does "a used approach" refer to? > > > > For the reader, is there some context to provide for citing > > > > HIP certificates [RFC8002]? > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > These extra means can be certificate-based, > > > > biometric, credit-based, and one-time passcode (OTP) approaches in > > > > addition to a used approach [RFC8002]. > > > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > These extra means could include approaches based on certificates, > > > > biometrics, credit, or One-Time Passwords (OTPs) > > > > in addition to Host Identity Protocol certificates [RFC8002]. > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > 12) <!--[rfced] Please clarify this sentence, in particular the > phrase > > > > "classify to different severity levels for driving safety". Does it > > > > mean the messages are classified into severity levels based > > > > on their potential significance to driving safety, or otherwise? > > > > Also, does "credit for the sender" refer to the "credit of the > sender"? > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > First, a credit- > > > > based means is to let a vehicle classify the received messages > sent > > > > by another host to different severity levels for driving safety in > > > > order to calculate the credit for the sender. > > > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > First, a credit- > > > > based method is when a vehicle classifies the messages it received > > > > from another host into various levels based on their potential > > > > effects on driving safety in order to calculate the credit of > that sender. > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > 13) <!-- [rfced] This sentence is quite complex, making it difficult > to parse. > > > > May we replace "which" with "This improvement" to split this into two > > > > sentences? > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > For the reliability required in V2V networking, the ND > optimization > > > > defined in MANET [RFC6130] [RFC7466] improves the classical IPv6 > ND > > > > in terms of tracking neighbor information with up to two hops and > > > > introducing several extensible Information Bases, which serves the > > > > MANET routing protocols such as the different versions of > Optimized > > > > Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR) [RFC3626] [RFC7181], Open > Shortest > > > > Path First (OSPF) derivatives (e.g., [RFC5614]), and Dynamic Link > > > > Exchange Protocol (DLEP) [RFC8175] with its extensions [RFC8629] > > > > [RFC8757]. > > > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > For the reliability required in V2V networking, the ND > optimization > > > > defined in the Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) [RFC6130] [RFC7466] > > > > improves the classical IPv6 ND in terms of tracking neighbor > > > > information with up to two hops and introducing several > extensible > > > > Information Bases. This improvement serves the MANET routing > > > > protocols, such as the different versions of Optimized Link State > > > > Routing Protocol (OLSR) [RFC3626] [RFC7181], Open Shortest Path > > > > First (OSPF) derivatives (e.g., [RFC5614]), and Dynamic Link > > > > Exchange Protocol (DLEP) [RFC8175] with its extensions [RFC8629] > > > > [RFC8757]. > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > 14) <!--[rfced] Please clarify this sentence, in particular "leads > the half > > > > of the link lifetime". > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > This relative speed leads the half of the link lifetime between > the > > > > vehicle and the IP-RSU. > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > 15) <!--[rfced] Please review how "not-onlink" has been rephrased > > > > and let us know any updates. That term has been avoided because it > > > > has not appeared in other RFCs and is not consistent with the hyphen > > > > in the term "on-link". Please note that RFC 8691 uses the phrase > > > > "advertised as not on-link". For example: > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > a destination vehicle [..] needs to be distinguished as either > > > > an on-link host or a not-onlink host > > > > > > > > Current: > > > > a destination vehicle [..] needs to be distinguished as either > > > > as a host that is either on-link or not on-link > > > > > > > > In Section 5.1.1, three instances were updated as follows (please > > > > see the diff file for context). > > > > - a prefix that is not on-link > > > > - the prefix should be not on-link. > > > > - prefixes that are not on-link > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > 16) <!--[rfced] Please clarify this sentence, in particular "can > maintain its > > > > neighboring vehicles in a stable way". > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > For example, the NA interval needs to be > > > > dynamically adjusted according to a vehicle's speed so that the > > > > vehicle can maintain its neighboring vehicles in a stable way, ... > > > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > For example, the NA interval needs to be > > > > dynamically adjusted according to a vehicle's speed so that the > > > > vehicle can maintain its position relative to its neighboring > > > > vehicles in a stable way, ... > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > 17) <!-- [rfced] How may this text be rephrased to clarify it? The > > > > original reads as though the RFC "installs the ND cache entries". > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > [RFC8505], as > > > > opposed to [RFC4861], is stateful and proactively installs the ND > > > > cache entries, which saves broadcasts and provides deterministic > > > > presence information for IPv6 addresses. Mainly it updates the > > > > Address Registration Option (ARO) of ND defined in [RFC6775] to > > > > include a status field that can indicate the movement of a node > and > > > > optionally a Transaction ID (TID) field, i.e., a sequence number > that > > > > can be used to determine the most recent location of a node. > > > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > (Option A) > > > > [RFC8505], as > > > > opposed to [RFC4861], states how to proactively install the ND > > > > cache entries. This saves broadcasts and provides deterministic > > > > presence information for IPv6 addresses. The installation then > > > > updates the Address Registration Option (ARO) of ND defined in > > > > [RFC6775] to include a status field that can indicate the > movement > > > > of a node and optionally a Transaction ID (TID) field, i.e., a > > > > sequence number that can be used to determine the most recent > > > > location of a node. > > > > > > > > (Option B) > > > > The extension described in [RFC8505] is stateful > > > > and proactively installs the ND cache entries; this saves > broadcasts > > > > and provides deterministic presence information for IPv6 > addresses. > > > > Mainly, it updates the Address Registration Option (ARO) of ND > > > > defined in [RFC6775] to include a status field (which can > indicate > > > > the movement of a node) and optionally a Transaction ID (TID) > field > > > > (which is a sequence number that can be used to determine the > most > > > > recent location of a node). > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > 18) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify "the SLAAC with [RFC8505]". Does it > > > > mean "SLAAC with the registration extension specified in > > > > [RFC8505]" or otherwise? > > > > > > > > Also, will the phrase "costs a DAD" be clear to the reader? > > > > Does it mean "costs DAD overhead" or otherwise? > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > Even though the SLAAC with classic ND costs a DAD during mobility > > > > management, the SLAAC with [RFC8505] and/or AERO/OMNI do not cost > a > > > > DAD. > > > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > Even though SLAAC with classic ND costs DAD overhead during > > > > mobility management, SLAAC with the registration extension > > > > specified in [RFC8505] and/or with AERO/OMNI does not cost DAD > overhead. > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > 19) <!--[rfced] Please clarify "among them"; does it mean mutual > > > > authentication of the vehicles? > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > In addition, > > > > to prevent bogus IP-RSUs and MA from interfering with the IPv6 > > > > mobility of vehicles, mutual authentication among them needs to be > > > > performed by certificates (e.g., TLS certificate). > > > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > In addition, > > > > to prevent bogus IP-RSUs and MA from interfering with the IPv6 > > > > mobility of vehicles, mutual authentication of the vehicles needs > > > > to be performed by certificates (e.g., TLS certificate). > > > > > > > > Or simply cut "among them": > > > > In addition, > > > > to prevent bogus IP-RSUs and MA from interfering with the IPv6 > > > > mobility of vehicles, mutual authentication needs to be > > > > performed by certificates (e.g., TLS certificate). > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > 20) <!-- [rfced] Would you like the references to be alphabetized > > > > or left in their current order? (This would be done by setting > > > > the rfc element's sortRefs attribute to true.) > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > 21) <!-- [rfced] The title in this reference does not match the > title of the > > > > document available from the provided URL. So would you like to keep > > > > the URL and update the title? Or, perhaps a different URL was > intended? > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > [FCC-ITS-Modification] > > > > Federal Communications Commission, "Use of the > 5.850-5.925 > > > > GHz Band, First Report and Order, Further Notice of > > > > Proposed Rulemaking, and Order of Proposed > Modification, > > > > FCC 19-138", Available: > https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc- > > > > modernizes-59-ghz-band-improve-wi-fi-and-automotive- > > > > safety-0, November 2020. > > > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > [FCC-ITS-Modification] > > > > Federal Communications Commission, "FCC Modernizes 5.9 > GHz > > > > Band to Improve Wi-Fi and Automotive Safety", November > 2020, > > > > <https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-modernizes-59- > > > > ghz-band-improve-wi-fi-and-automotive-safety-0>. > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > 22) <!-- [rfced] Are there exactly two modes for routing in RPL? > > > > If so, may we update the sentence as follows? > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > There are two modes for routing in RPL > > > > such as non-storing mode and storing mode. > > > > > > > > Perhaps (remove "such as"): > > > > There are two modes for routing in RPL: > > > > non-storing mode and storing mode. > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > 23) <!-- [rfced] Some author comments are present in the XML. Please > confirm > > > > that no updates related to these comments are outstanding. Note that > the > > > > comments will be deleted prior to publication. > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > 24) <!-- [rfced] Terminology and Capitalization > > > > > > > > a) Will it be clear to readers what the following terms are? If not, > > > > please let us know if definitions should be added to Section 2. > > > > > > > > gNodeB > > > > eNodeB > > > > > > > > We note that RFC 9269 contains: > > > > eNodeB: The eNodeB is a base station entity that supports the > Long > > > > Term Evolution (LTE) air interface. > > > > > > > > > > > > b) In this definition, "Vehicle" is capitalized but throughout the > > > > document it isn't. Would you like to make this instance lowercase or, > > > > would you like any other instances of "vehicle" to be capitalized? > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > * Vehicle: A Vehicle in this document is a node that has an > IP-OBU > > > > for wireless communication with other vehicles and IP-RSUs. > > > > > > > > > > > > c) In this definition, "Vehicular Cloud” is capitalized but > throughout the > > > > document it is sometimes capitalized and sometimes not. How may we > update > > > > for consistency? > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > * Vehicular Cloud: A cloud infrastructure for vehicular networks, > > > > having compute nodes, storage nodes, and network forwarding > > > > elements (e.g., switch and router). > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > 25) <!-- [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. > > > > > > > > In addition, please consider whether "traditional helicopter" should > be > > > > updated for clarity. While the NIST website > > > > < > https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1 > > > > > > indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous. > > > > "Tradition" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone. > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > RFC Editor/st/ar > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 2023, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > > > > > > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > > > > > > > Updated 2023/02/17 > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > * rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org (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). > > > > > > > > * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, 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, > > > > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org 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/rfc9365.xml > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9365.html > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9365.pdf > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9365.txt > > > > > > > > Diff file of the text: > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9365-diff.html > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9365-rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > > > > > > > > Diff of the XML: > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9365-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/rfc9365.original.v2v3.xml > > > > > > > > XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format > updates > > > > only: > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9365.form.xml > > > > > > > > > > > > Tracking progress > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9365 > > > > > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > > > > > > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > > > > > > > RFC Editor > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > RFC9365 (draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-30) > > > > > > > > Title : IPv6 Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments > (IPWAVE): Problem Statement and Use Cases > > > > Author(s) : J. Jeong, Ed. > > > > WG Chair(s) : Carlos J. Bernardos, Russ Housley > > > > Area Director(s) : Erik Kline, Éric Vyncke > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <Revision-Letter-for-AUTH48-for-IPWAVE-PS-Draft-2023-02-18.docx><Revision-Letter-for-AUTH48-for-IPWAVE-PS-Draft-2023-02-18.pdf><draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-30-rfc9365.xml> > > > > -- > > =========================== > > Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D. > > Associate Professor > > Department of Computer Science and Engineering > > Sungkyunkwan University > > Office: +82-31-299-4957 > > Email: pauljeong@skku.edu, jaehoon.paul@gmail.com > > Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php > > > -- =========================== Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering Sungkyunkwan University Office: +82-31-299-4957 Email: pauljeong@skku.edu, jaehoon.paul@gmail.com Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>
- [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-ipwav… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-i… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-i… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-i… Alice Russo
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-i… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-i… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-i… Alice Russo
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-i… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-i… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-i… Alice Russo
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-i… Alice Russo
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-i… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-i… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-i… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-i… Alice Russo
- [auth48] [AD] - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft… Alice Russo
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-i… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-i… Alice Russo
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-i… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-i… Alice Russo
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-i… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-i… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-i… Alice Russo
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-i… Erik Kline
- Re: [auth48] [AD] - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <d… Erik Kline
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-i… Alice Russo
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-i… Alice Russo
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-i… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-i… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-i… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-i… Alice Russo
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-i… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-i… Alice Russo
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9365 <draft-ietf-i… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong