Re: [auth48] [C381] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9301 <draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-31> for your review

[Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dino,

Thank you for your reply. We have updated the files, per your response to the cluster-wide queries. 

Please note that we are awaiting word from you regarding how you would like your affiliation information to appear across the documents in C381.

> Dino Farinacci:
> ===============
> lispers.net
> 
> lispers.net
> San Jose, CA
> United States of America

 The files have been posted here (please refresh):
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9301.txt
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9301.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9301.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9301.xml

 The relevant diff files are posted here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9301-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9301-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 changes)
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9301-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff diff between last version and this)
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9301-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between last version and this)

Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9301

Thank you,
RFC Editor/ap

> On Sep 20, 2022, at 12:34 PM, Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> Apologies for the confusion. In the text denoted by “Original” in the query below, should a section number be included with the citation for clarity?
> 
> I think referencing just the lisp-sec RFC is sufficient. Because the S-bit is used in many cases in lisp-sec.
> 
>> 21) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.8:  This sentence is difficult to follow, as
>>> we only see one instance of the word "procedure" (used in the
>>> singular) in draft-ietf-lisp-sec and could not find the relevant
>>> information.  Please clarify for readers where in draft-ietf-lisp-sec
>>> (perhaps a section number) this information can be found.
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> S:    This is the Security bit.  When set to 1, the field following
>>>    the 'Reserved' field will have the following Authentication
>>>    Data format and follow the procedures from [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]. -->
>> 
>> Additionally, please note that we have updated the text to use “LISP Packet Type” (capitalized), per input from the authors of RFC-to-be 9304.
> 
> That is fine.
> 
> Thanks,
> Dino
>