Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9302 <draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-14> for your review

[Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Looks good to me.

Thank you very much for your excellent work for the whole cluster.

Ciao

L.

> On 23 Sep 2022, at 02:40, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Authors,
> 
> We have updated the files per Dino’s response to the cluster-wide queries, and we have updated Damien’s 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/rfc9302.txt
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.pdf
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.xml
> 
> The relevant diff files are posted here:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 changes)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff diff between last version and this)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between last version and this)
> 
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/ap
> 
>> On Sep 14, 2022, at 9:07 AM, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Luigi, Olivier, and Damien,
>> 
>> Thank you for your replies. We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9302
>> 
>> 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 14, 2022, at 3:18 AM, dsaucez <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> I am ok with the suggestions as well.
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> 
>>> Damien Saucez 
>>> 
>>>> On 14 Sep 2022, at 10:44, Olivier Bonaventure <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Same for me, I agree with your changes and Luigi’s comments.
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Olivier Bonaventure
>>>> 
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: Luigi IANNONE <[e-mail]>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 8:51 AM
>>>> To: Alanna Paloma
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; Damien Saucez; Olivier Bonaventure; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9302 <draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-14> for your review
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I had a look at the latest diff and it looks all good to me.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for your work.
>>>> 
>>>> Ciao
>>>> 
>>>> L.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, 14 September 2022 00:51
>>>>> To: Luigi IANNONE <[e-mail]>
>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9302 <draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-14> for your
>>>>> review
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Luigi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you for your reply.  We have updated as requested.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.xml
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.txt
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.html
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.pdf
>>>>> 
>>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-auth48diff.html (AUTH48
>>>>> changes)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further
>>>>> updates you may have.  Note that we do not make changes once a
>>>>> document is published as an RFC.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page
>>>>> below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process.
>>>>> 
>>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9302
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> RFC Editor/ap
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sep 13, 2022, at 4:24 AM, Luigi IANNONE
>>>>> <luigi.iannone=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you very much for this review,
>>>>>> See comments inline.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 13 September 2022 06:37
>>>>>>> To: Luigi IANNONE <[e-mail]>;
>>>>> [e-mail];
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>>>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9302 <draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-14> for
>>>>>>> your review
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Authors,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 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] RFC 6834 says the following:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It is not meant to replace any
>>>>>>> existing LISP mechanisms but rather to extend them by providing new
>>>>>>> functionalities.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Should this text indicate that it updates the extensions or
>>>>>>> functionalities, rather than the mechanisms?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Can be simplified to:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It is not meant to replace any existing LISP mechanism, rather providing
>>>>> new functionalities.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Better?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> This document obsoletes RFC 6834 "Locator/ID Separation Protocol
>>>>>>> (LISP) Map-Versioning", which is the initial experimental
>>>>>>> specifications of the mechanisms updated by this document.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> This document obsoletes [RFC6834], which is the initial experimental
>>>>>>> specifications of the mechanisms updated by this document.
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>> I guess the second is actually new text, which reads better.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 3) <!-- [rfced]  In the following, to what does "it" and "both" refer?
>>>>>>> Is it "Map-Versioning" or "the information"?  Because there are two
>>>>>>> uses and the text refers to "both cases", we suggest using updating
>>>>>>> this text to clearly separate the uses (e.g., perhaps use <ol> or <ul>).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> When Map-Versioning is used, LISP-encapsulated data packets contain
>>>>>>> the version number of the two mappings used to select the RLOCs in
>>>>>>> the outer header (i.e., both source and destination RLOCs).  This
>>>>>>> information has two uses.  On the one hand, it enables the ETR
>>>>>>> (Egress Tunnel Router) receiving the packet to know if the ITR
>>>>>>> (Ingress Tunnel Router) is using the latest mapping version for the
>>>>>>> destination EID.  If this is not the case, the ETR can directly send
>>>>>>> a Map-Request containing the updated mapping to the ITR, to notify it
>>>>>>> of the latest version.  The ETR can also solicit the ITR to trigger a
>>>>>>> Map-Request to obtain the latest mapping by sending it a Solicit Map-
>>>>>>> Request (SMR) message.  Both cases are defined in
>>>>>>> [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].  On the other hand, it enables an ETR
>>>>>>> receiving such a packet to know if it has in its EID-to-RLOC Map-
>>>>>>> Cache the latest mapping for the source EID.  If this is not the
>>>>>>> case, a Map-Request can be sent.
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> New suggested text:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> When Map-Versioning is used, LISP-encapsulated data packets contain
>>>>>> the version number of the two mappings used to select the RLOCs in
>>>>>> the outer header (i.e., both source and destination RLOCs).  This
>>>>>> information has two uses:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1. Map-Versioning enables the ETR  (Egress Tunnel Router) receiving
>>>>>>    the packet to know if the ITR (Ingress Tunnel Router) is using the latest
>>>>>>    mapping version for the destination EID.  If this is not the case, the ETR
>>>>>>    can directly send a Map-Request containing the updated mapping to
>>>>>>    the ITR, to notify it of the latest version.  The ETR can also solicit the
>>>>>>    ITR to trigger a Map-Request to obtain the latest mapping by sending
>>>>>>    a Solicit Map- Request (SMR) message.  Both options are defined in
>>>>>>    [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2. Map-Versioning enables an ETR  receiving the packet to know if it
>>>>>>   has in its EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache the latest mapping for the
>>>>>>   source EID.  If this is not the case, a Map-Request can be sent.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Better?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 4) <!--[rfced] May we update instances of "Dest Map-Version number"
>>>>>>> to "Destination Map-Version number" to reflect usage in RFC 6834?
>>>>>>> Note that this document has 2 instances of "Destination Map-Version
>>>>>>> number" and 14 instances of "Dest Map-Version number".
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> Dest Map-Version number:  Map-Version of the mapping in the EID-to-
>>>>>>> RLOC Map-Cache used by the ITR to select the RLOC present in the
>>>>>>> "Destination Routing Locator" field of the outer IP header of LISP-
>>>>>>> encapsulated packets (Section 7.1).
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Actually should be the other way around, changing the two instances of
>>>>> "Destination Map-Version Number: to "Dest Map-Version Number". The use
>>>>> of "Dest Map-Version Number" has been chosen to be inline with the figure
>>>>> 1 throughout the document.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we update this text as follows?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> The ordering enables reacting differently to
>>>>>>> "older" and "newer" Map-Version number, discarding the packet in the
>>>>>>> former case and triggering a Map-Request in the latter (see Section 7
>>>>>>> for further details).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>>> The ordering enables different reactions to
>>>>>>> "older" and "newer" Map-Version numbers, whereby "older" numbers
>>>>> are
>>>>>>> discarded and "newer" numbers trigger Map-Requests (see Section 7
>>>>>>> for further details).
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes. It reads better.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] Do you want to use superscript (<sup>) here?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>    V2 > V1 AND (V2 - V1) <= 2**(12-1)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>     OR
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>     V1 > V2 AND (V1 - V2) > 2**(12-1)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> <sup> would display as follows in the text:
>>>>>>>     V2 > V1 AND (V2 - V1) <= 2^(12-1)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>     OR
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>     V1 > V2 AND (V1 - V2) > 2^(12-1)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> (12-1) would display as superscript in HTML and PDF.
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes, good idea.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] Is it the LISP site that assigns a new Map-Version number?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> The main idea of using Map-Version numbers is that whenever there is
>>>>>>> a change in the mapping (e.g., adding/removing RLOCs, a change in the
>>>>>>> weights due to Traffic Engineering policies, or a change in the
>>>>>>> priorities) or a LISP site realizes that one or more of its own RLOCs
>>>>>>> are not reachable anymore from a local perspective (e.g., through
>>>>>>> IGP, or policy changes) the LISP site updates the mapping, also
>>>>>>> assigning a new Map-Version number.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>>> The main idea of using Map-Version numbers is that whenever there is
>>>>>>> a change in the mapping (e.g., adding/removing RLOCs, a change in the
>>>>>>> weights due to Traffic Engineering policies, or a change in the
>>>>>>> priorities) or a LISP site realizes that one or more of its own RLOCs
>>>>>>> are no longer reachable from a local perspective (e.g., through IGP
>>>>>>> or policy changes), the LISP site updates the mapping and also assigns
>>>>>>> a new Map-Version number.
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The suggested text is OK.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Is mapping intended to be singular or plural here?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> To this end simple measures can be
>>>>>>> taken, like updating a mapping only when all active traffic is using
>>>>>>> the latest version, or waiting sufficient time to be sure that
>>>>>>> mapping in LISP caches expire, which means waiting at least as much
>>>>>>> as the mapping Time-To-Live (as defined in
>>>>>>> [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>>> To this end, simple measures can be taken, like
>>>>>>> updating a mapping only when all active traffic is using the latest
>>>>>>> version, or waiting a sufficient amount of time to be sure that the
>>>>>>> mapping in LISP caches expires, which means waiting at least as long
>>>>>>> as the mapping Time To Live (TTL) (as defined in [RFC9301]).
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Singular is correct.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing this sentence.  Should
>>>>>>> the second instance of "ignoring the Source Map-Version number" be
>>>>> deleted?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> The ETR checks only the Dest Map-Version number, ignoring the Source
>>>>>>> Map-Version number as specified in the final sentence of Section 7.2,
>>>>>>> ignoring the Source Map-Version number.
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes, delete the second instance.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 10) <!-- [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.
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Nothing to change IMO.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ciao
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> L.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> RFC Editor
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sep 12, 2022, at 9:33 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Updated 2022/09/12
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *  [e-mail] (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).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *  [e-mail], 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,
>>>>>>>    [e-mail] 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/rfc9302.xml
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.html
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.pdf
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.txt
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Diff file of the text:
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-diff.html
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-rfcdiff.html (side by
>>>>>>> side)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Diff of the XML:
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-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/rfc9302.original.v2v3.xml
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
>>>>>>> only:
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.form.xml
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Tracking progress
>>>>>>> -----------------
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9302
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> RFC Editor
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>>> RFC9302 (draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-14)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Title            : Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning
>>>>>>> Author(s)        : L. Iannone, D. Saucez, O. Bonaventure
>>>>>>> WG Chair(s)      : Joel M. Halpern, Luigi Iannone
>>>>>>> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>