Acee, Ketan (as AD),
*AD - Please review this change and let us know if you approve (changed from
"MUST" to "must" per Acee's reply to #5).
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].
Current:
The Link Local/Remote Identifiers of the peering interfaces must be
used in the link NLRI as described in Section 5.2.2 of [RFC9815].
Acee,
Thank you for your reply. My apologies for the delay. Please see the follow-ups
below. The revised files are here (please refresh):
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816.txt
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816.xml
This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816-auth48diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Re: #4, we updated to the text you provided except for expanding "SPF", as it
has already been expanded within the document and is used earlier within the
same sentence without expansion. If you prefer otherwise, please let us know.
FYI, in Section 2, this has been updated as follows; please let us know if you
prefer otherwise.
Old: BGP-SPF [RFC9815]
New: BGP-LS SPF [RFC9815]
We will wait to hear from you again and from your coauthors
before continuing the publication process. This page shows
the AUTH48 status of your document:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9816
Thank you.
RFC Editor/ar
> On Jul 3, 2025, at 4:58 PM, Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
