Hi Alice, I've reviewed and I approve of this change.
Thanks, Ketan On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 12:49 AM Alice Russo <aru...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > 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
