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

[Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>]

Hi Authors,

We have updated the files per Dino’s response to the cluster-wide queries, and we have updated your affiliation information.

Please note that, since we have already received all approvals, we only need 1 author to review the changes and let us know if they are agreeable or if any further changes are needed.

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)
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9299-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff diff between last version and this)
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9299-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between last version and this)

Thank you,
RFC Editor/ap

> On Sep 20, 2022, at 5:15 PM, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9299
> 
> As this document is part of Cluster C381, you may track the progress of all
> documents in this cluster through AUTH48 at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C381
> 
> We will move this document forward in the publication process once the other
> necessary documents in the cluster complete AUTH48 as well
> 
> Please let us know if you have any questions.
> 
> RFC Editor/ap
> 
>> On Sep 20, 2022, at 4:16 PM, Albert Cabellos <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> I am ok with the latest version,
>> 
>> thanks for the oustanding review
>> 
>> Albert
>> 
>>> On 21 Sept 2022, at 01:08, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Damien,
>>> 
>>> Thank you for your reply. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9299
>>> 
>>> Once we receive Albert’s approval, we will move this document forward in the publication process.
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> RFC Editor/ap
>>> 
>>>> On Sep 20, 2022, at 10:54 AM, dsaucez <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hello,
>>>> 
>>>> I am fine with the latest version, thank you for all the work done.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Damien Saucez 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 15 Sep 2022, at 22:22, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 14 Sep 2022, at 17:08, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>