Hi Megan, Thanks for the explanation.
Everything is fine for me now. Thanks again for all your efforts. Ciao L. > On 4 Feb 2025, at 15:33, Megan Ferguson <mfergu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > 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
