Gaurav, Forwarding to this email address. (We got a bounce from <gda...@linkedin.com>.) Please let us know how you would like your contact information to appear in this document and any other updates.
To see the AUTH48 thread for this document: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?as=1&email_list=auth48archive&q=subject%3A(9816) Thank you. RFC Editor/ar > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Alice Russo <aru...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > Subject: AD - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9816 <draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-22> > for your review > Date: July 9, 2025 at 12:19:30 PM PDT > To: Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com>, Ketan Talaulikar > <ketant.i...@gmail.com> > Cc: Keyur Patel <ke...@arrcus.com>, sza...@linkedin.com, gda...@linkedin.com, > "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.d...@huawei.com>, lsvr-...@ietf.org, > lsvr-cha...@ietf.org, "james.n.guichard" <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>, > auth48archive <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>, RFC Editor > <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > > 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
