Hi RFC Editor, Thank you for your work on this document.
> On Jul 1, 2025, at 2:21 AM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > Authors, > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) > the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > > 1) <!--[rfced] BGP-LS and SPF > > a) Would you like to update the title of the document as shown below > or otherwise, to more closely match how "BGP-LS" and "SPF" > are handled in the title of RFC-to-be 9815? > > Original: > Usage and Applicability of BGP Link-State Shortest Path > Routing (BGP-SPF) in Data Centers > > Option A: > Usage and Applicability of BGP Link-State > Shortest Path First (SPF) Routing in Data Centers Use option A consistent with the base document - "BGP Link-State Shortest Path First (SPF) Routing" in RFC 9815. > > Option B: > Usage and Applicability of BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) > Shortest Path First (SPF) Routing in Data Centers > > b) To match how the companion document expands "BGP-LS" and > "SPF", may we update the Abstract and Introduction as shown > below for consistency? > > Original (Abstract): > This document discusses the usage and applicability of BGP Link-State > Shortest Path First (BGP-SPF) extensions in data center networks > utilizing Clos or Fat-Tree topologies. > > Perhaps: > This document discusses the usage and applicability of BGP - Link State > (BGP-LS) Shortest Path First (SPF) extensions in data center networks > utilizing Clos or Fat Tree topologies. Use; This document discusses the usage and applicability of BGP Link State (BGP-LS) Shortest Path First (SPF) extensions in data center networks utilizing Clos or Fat Tree topologies. > > ... > Original (Introduction): > This document complements [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf] by discussing the > applicability of the BGP-SPF technology in a simple and fairly common > deployment scenario, which is described in Section 3. > > Perhaps: > This document complements [RFC9815] by discussing the applicability of > the BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) Shortest Path First (SPF) technology in > a simple and fairly common deployment scenario, which is described in > Section 3. Use: This document complements [RFC9815] by discussing the applicability of the BGP Link State (BGP-LS) Shortest Path First (SPF) technology in a simple and fairly common deployment scenario, which is described in Section 3. > > c) Throughout the text, we note "BGP-SPF" vs. "BGP SPF". "BGP SPF" is > used both in the companion document and the IANA registry at > <https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-spf/>. Would you like to update > each instance of "BGP-SPF" to "BGP SPF" for consistency? See one > example below: > > Original: > The document is intended to provide simplified guidance > for the deployment of BGP-SPF extensions. > > Perhaps: > The document is intended to provide simplified guidance > for the deployment of BGP SPF extensions. Use "BGP SPF" then. > --> > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> > > > 3) <!-- [rfced] We updated "RFC 5580" to "RFC 5880" in the following > sentence, and elsewhere in the document where "BFD" is > referenced, as "BFD" is defined in RFC 5880 and not mentioned > in RFC 5580. If this is not correct, please let us know. > > Original: > This document also assumes knowledge of data center routing > protocols such as BGP [RFC4271], BGP-SPF [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf], OSPF > [RFC2328] [RFC5340], as well as data center Operations, > Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) protocols like Link Layer > Discovery Protocol (LLDP) [RFC4957] and Bi- Directional Forwarding > Detection (BFD) [RFC5580]. > > Current: > This document also assumes knowledge of data center routing > protocols such as BGP [RFC4271], BGP-SPF [RFC9815], and OSPF > [RFC2328] [RFC5340] as well as data center Operations, > Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) protocols like the Link Layer > Discovery Protocol (LLDP) [RFC4957] and Bidirectional Forwarding > Detection (BFD) [RFC5580]. > --> Sure - good catch. > > > 4) <!--[rfced] "SPF" is not mentioned in RFC 9552. Should a different RFC be > referenced or was "OSPF" perhaps intended? > > Original: > The BGP-SPF modifications allow BGP to overcome these limitations. > Furthermore, using the BGP-LS Network Layer Reachability Information > (NLRI) format allows the BGP-SPF data to be advertised for nodes, > links, and prefixes in the BGP routing domain and used for Short- > Path-First (SPF) computations [RFC9552]. > --> Use: The BGP-SPF modifications allow BGP to overcome these limitations. Furthermore, using the BGP-LS Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) format [RFC9552] allows the BGP-SPF data to be advertised for nodes, links, and prefixes in the BGP routing domain and used for Short- Path-First (SPF) computations. > > > 5) <!-- [rfced] We see that the approved I-D (v22) contains one instance > of a keyword ("MUST" in Section 5.5.1). Is this intentional? If > so, we will add the typical paragraph from BCP 14 regarding use > of keywords after the Introduction and add RFCs 2119 and 8174 to > the Normative References section. Otherwise, we will update > "MUST" to "must". > > Original: > The Link Local/Remote Identifiers of the peering interfaces MUST be > used in the link NLRI as described in section 5.2.2 of > [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf]. > --> Please change to "must" for BCP. > > > 6) <!--[rfced] Is "BGP-LS SPF Topology" correct or should it perhaps be > "BGP-LS-SPF Topology" for consistency? > > Original: > 5.5.2 BGP-LS SPF Topology Visibility for Management > > Perhaps: > 5.5.2 BGP-LS-SPF Topology Visibility for Management > --> Ok. > > > 7) <!--[rfced] Would repeating "Non" make this section title more clear? > The meaning seems to be applicability to topologies that are > neither Clos nor Fat Tree topologies. > > Original: > 6. Non-CLOS/FAT Tree Topology Applicability > > Current: > 6. Non-Clos / Fat Tree Topology Applicability > > Perhaps: > 6. Non-Clos / Non-Fat-Tree Topology Applicability > --> Leave as: 6. Non-Clos / Fat Tree Topology Applicability > > > 8) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We updated the following terms for > consistency. Please let us know of any objections. > > BGP-LS Node NLRI Attribute SPF Status TLV -> > BGP-LS-SPF Node NLRI Attribute SPF Status TLV (per the companion doc) > BGP-LS SPF SAFI -> BGP-LS-SPF SAFI (per the companion doc) > Clos Topologies -> Clos topologies > Fat-Tree -> Fat Tree (per use in the RFC Series) > link NLRI -> Link NLRI (per RFC 9552) > Route Controllers -> route controllers (per companion document) > Route Reflectors -> route reflectors (per companion document) > Spine Nodes -> spine nodes > Unicast -> unicast > --> Ok. > > > 9) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have updated the expansions for the following > abbreviations to reflect the form on the right for consistency with > the companion document and/or RFC Series. > > Bi-Directional Forwarding Detection (BFD) -> > Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Ok. > > Equal-Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) -> Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) Ok. > > Top-Of-Rack (ToR) -> Top-of-Rack (ToR) Ok. > --> > > > 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. Updates of this nature typically > result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. > > For example, please consider whether the following should be updated: > - blackhole Replace "blackhole" with "routes to unreachable destinations". > > In addition, please consider whether "traditional" should be updated > for clarity. While the NIST website > <https://web.archive.org/web/20250214092458/https://www.nist.gov/ > nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1> > indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous. > "Tradition" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone. > --> "usual BGP underlays" and "classical BGP routing". Please update my contact information with a new affiliation: Acee Lindem Arrcus, Inc. 301 Midenhall Way Cary, NC 27513 United States of America Email: acee.i...@gmail.com Thanks, Acee > > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/kc/ar > > > On Jun 30, 2025, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > Updated 2025/06/30 > > 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 > > * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (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). > > * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, 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, > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org 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/rfc9816.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9816 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9816 (draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-22) > > Title : Usage and Applicability of BGP Link-State Shortest Path > Routing (BGP-SPF) in Data Centers > Author(s) : K. Patel, A. Lindem, S. Zandi, G. Dawra, J. Dong > WG Chair(s) : Jie Dong, Acee Lindem > Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
