Hi Luigi, > On Feb 4, 2025, at 1:56 AM, Luigi IANNONE <luigi.iann...@huawei.com> wrote: > >>> d) We see variations in the following forms. Should these be made >>> consistent? >>> >>> Mapping System vs. mapping system >>> EID-Record vs. EID record >>> RLOC-record vs. RLOC record >>> >> [LI] Yes thanks. They should be: >> >> Mapping System >> EID-Record >> RLOC-Record >> >> [rfced] Please review our update to move a sentence from the Introduction >> to the Abstract in order to keep the expansions of EID and RLOC while >> maintaining consistent RLOC-Record and EID-Record use. > > [LI] Not sure I get the comment. The abstract looks OK to me. What exactly > should be added? Sorry this was not clear. We already did add the suggested sentence from the Introduction into the Abstract: LISP introduces two new numbering spaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators (RLOCs).
If the above addition is acceptable, we will mark all questions resolved. Please let us know if there are any further updates you would like to make to the document. Dino approved yesterday, so once we have your approval of the document, we will be ready to move forward in the publication process. Thank you. RFC Editor/mf -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
