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

[[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.

* Cluster 381 (C381) currently in AUTH48 state:
  RFC 9299: draft-ietf-lisp-introduction 
  RFC 9300: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis 
  RFC 9301: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis
  RFC 9302: draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis 
  RFC 9303: draft-ietf-lisp-sec 
  RFC 9304: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis
  RFC 9305: draft-ietf-lisp-gpe 
  RFC 9306: draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf 

You may track the progress of all documents in this cluster through AUTH48 
at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C381

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

 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

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)

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

 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))

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

 EID record vs. EID-record (in text)

 RLOC record vs. RLOC-record (in text)

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

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

 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)

   Do these instances all mean "Routing Locator address"?

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

 mapping system vs. Mapping System

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

3) Author affiliations:

a) Please review your affiliation information and let us know which (if any) is the preferred form.  These are all full affiliation names as listed in the Authors' Addresses sections in this group of documents.

Albert Cabellos:
================
 UPC-BarcelonaTech
 c/ Jordi Girona 1-3
 08034 Barcelona Catalonia
 Spain

 UPC/BarcelonaTech
 Campus Nord
 C. Jordi Girona 1-3
 Barcelona Catalunya
 Spain

 Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya
 c/ Jordi Girona s/n
 08034 Barcelona
 Spain

Dino Farinacci:
===============
 lispers.net

 lispers.net
 San Jose, CA
 United States of America

Vina Ermagan:
=============
 Google
 United States of America

 Google
 CA
 United States of America

Damien Saucez:
==============
 Inria
 2004 route des Lucioles BP 93
 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex
 France

 INRIA

 Inria
 2004 route des Lucioles - BP 93
 Sophia Antipolis
 France

Fabio Maino **:
===============
 Cisco Systems

 Cisco Systems
 170 Tasman Drive
 San Jose, CA 95134
 United States of America

 Cisco Systems, Inc.

 Cisco Systems
 San Jose, CA 95134
 United States of America

Darrel Lewis **:
================

 Cisco Systems
 San Jose, CA 95134
 United States of America

 Cisco Systems
 170 Tasman Drive
 San Jose, CA
 United States of America

** We also see "Cisco Systems, Inc." in the Contributors section of
   draft-ietf-lisp-gpe.

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


Thank you,
RFC Editor