Luigi and Dino, As we have now received approvals from each author (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9735) and resolved all queries, we will move this document forward in the publication process at this time.
Thank you for your time and attention during AUTH48. RFC Editor/mf > On Feb 4, 2025, at 7:35 AM, Luigi Iannone <g...@gigix.net> wrote: > > 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
