IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [auth48] [C336] RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9299 <draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-15> for your review

Alanna Paloma <apaloma@amsl.com> Thu, 15 September 2022 20:22 UTC

Return-Path: <apaloma@amsl.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 499D2C15949D; Thu, 15 Sep 2022 13:22:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 LNhwIoZPcWgR; Thu, 15 Sep 2022 13:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c8a.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 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 DD9A3C15949A; Thu, 15 Sep 2022 13:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C83154280C0F; Thu, 15 Sep 2022 13:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EXTX1orzACnP; Thu, 15 Sep 2022 13:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from amss-mbp.attlocal.net (unknown [IPv6:2600:1700:bac0:1070:5cf6:ac69:38c3:744a]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 76517425C191; Thu, 15 Sep 2022 13:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Alanna Paloma <apaloma@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <A83D69F4-F083-4977-A107-7DBED995EB43@gigix.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2022 13:22:46 -0700
Cc: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>, Albert CABELLOS <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, lisp-ads@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E7027A37-72B6-47FA-8241-C7AD0B82C345@amsl.com>
References: <20220907050157.B644B4C29E@rfcpa.amsl.com> <CAHS_mjH+ni0oqNjqMVn6Vp+Kri2WxjiQz0FyFJgvXJeUZ0-veA@mail.gmail.com> <706BA4B5-7F03-415C-B38C-A2A7F13430DC@gigix.net> <CAMMESsykBb0YWH-EhysA7zPArm2SNyFi-edM-dawsryqTQigjA@mail.gmail.com> <A83D69F4-F083-4977-A107-7DBED995EB43@gigix.net>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, Albert Cabellos <alberto.cabellos@upc.edu>, Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/ml_bQ_0GmdlQiZtR2-Mzzbw0Qz4>
Subject: Re: [auth48] [C336] RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9299 <draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-15> 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: Thu, 15 Sep 2022 20:22:52 -0000

Authors and Alvaro,

We have updated the text per Alvaro’s request and noted his approval on the AUTH48 status page:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9299

Please note that, since approvals came in before the queries were answered and additional changes were made, we would like to obtain approvals from both authors again. Once we have received these approvals, we will move forward with the publication process.

The files have been posted here (please refresh):
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9299.txt
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9299.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9299.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9299.xml

The relevant diff files are posted here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9299-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9299-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 changes)

Best regards,
RFC Editor/ap

> On Sep 15, 2022, at 6:58 AM, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 14 Sep 2022, at 17:08, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On September 14, 2022 at 9:18:23 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> This may lead confusion with the publication date.
>>> What is we add: “… time of this writing (Editor’s Note: 2015)…”
>>> 
>>> What do you think?
>> 
>> I think that would lead to more confusion as the published RFC is
>> intended to be current.
>> 
>> Has anything changed since 2015?  If not, "at the time of this
>> writing" is still accurate (and no change is required).  If things
>> have changed, we need to update the text.
> 
> You are right. Nothing did change.
> 
> Ciao
> 
> L.
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Alvaro.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email