Hi Alice, > On Jul 11, 2025, at 3:44 PM, Alice Russo <aru...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > Acee, > > Thank you for your reply and Shawn's updated contact information; please see > the follow-ups below. The revised files are here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815.xml > > This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > This diff file shows only the changes since the last posted version: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815-lastrfcdiff.html > > We believe this question remains: >> Re: #19 (Section 6.5.1), per your reply, no change has been made. >> There is one instance of "BGP-LS-LINK NLRI" in the document -- >> should it be changed to "BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI" or otherwise? > > > Re: >>>> a) In light of that, would you like instances of 'BGP - Link State >>>> (BGP-LS)' in this document to be changed to "BGP Link State (BGP-LS)", >>>> even though it doesn't exactly match RFC 9552 or the IANA registry >>>> (https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/)? >>> >>> Yes. In addition to thinking the original was a mistake, the whole purpose >>> of the document is the describe SPF Routing using BGP-LS. Please the >>> ill-positioned hyphen confused the intent. > > The document has been updated as requested. Please review. > > I see your point re: the hyphen. That said, to make the title of this > document match how the term is used within the document (and more similar to > how BGP-LS has been used in past RFC titles, as listed below), what do you > think of updating the title as follows? (remove hyphen and add acronym) > > -- 9815 > Current: BGP Link-State Shortest Path First (SPF) Routing > Perhaps: BGP Link State (BGP-LS) Shortest Path First (SPF) Routing > > -- 9816 > Current: Usage and Applicability of BGP Link-State Shortest Path First (SPF) > Routing in Data Centers > Perhaps: Usage and Applicability of BGP Link State (BGP-LS) Shortest Path > First (SPF) Routing in Data Centers
I agree - this is more consistent. Let’s go with the “Perhaps” options. Thanks, Acee > > > Past usage in RFC titles: > > RFC 8571: BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering > Performance Metric Extensions > RFC 9029: Updates to the Allocation Policy for the Border Gateway Protocol - > Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registries > RFC 9085: Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for > Segment Routing > RFC 9086: Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for > Segment Routing BGP Egress Peer Engineering > RFC 9104: Distribution of Traffic Engineering Extended Administrative Groups > Using the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) > RFC 9247: BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Seamless Bidirectional > Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) > RFC 9294: Application-Specific Link Attributes Advertisement Using the Border > Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) > RFC9351: Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for > Flexible Algorithm Advertisement > RFC 9514: Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for > Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) > > And one without the acronym: > RFC 8814: Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using the Border Gateway Protocol > - Link State > > 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/rfc9815 > > Thank you. > RFC Editor/ar > >> On Jul 11, 2025, at 8:18 AM, Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Alice, >> >> Please update Shawn's contact information as well: >> >> Shawn Zandi >> Email: shaf...@shafagh.com <mailto:shaf...@shafagh.com> >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >>> On Jul 10, 2025, at 7:14 AM, Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Alice, >>> >>>> On Jul 9, 2025, at 3:19 PM, Alice Russo <aru...@staff.rfc-editor.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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/rfc9815.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815.txt >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815.pdf >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815.xml >>>> >>>> This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815-diff.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >>>> >>>> This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815-auth48diff.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by >>>> side) >>>> >>>> >>>> Re: #19 (Section 6.5.1), per your reply, no change has been made. >>>> There is one instance of "BGP-LS-LINK NLRI" in the document -- >>>> should it be changed to "BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI" or otherwise? >>>> >>>> >>>> Re: #28 (Abbreviations, specifically BGP-LS) >>>>>> c) We updated the following expansions to reflect the form on the right >>>>>> for consistency with the RFC Series: >>>>>> >>>>>> BGP Link-State (BGP-LS) -> BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) (per RFC 9552) >>>>> >>>>> This looks strange but we can go with the RFC 9552 expansion. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In RFC-to-be 9816, we note your decision to use "BGP Link State (BGP-LS)" >>>> in the abstract and introduction. >>>> >>>> a) In light of that, would you like instances of 'BGP - Link State >>>> (BGP-LS)' in this document to be changed to "BGP Link State (BGP-LS)", >>>> even though it doesn't exactly match RFC 9552 or the IANA registry >>>> (https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/)? >>> >>> Yes. In addition to thinking the original was a mistake, the whole purpose >>> of the document is the describe SPF Routing using BGP-LS. Please the >>> ill-positioned hyphen confused the intent. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> b) Is it correct that you want the RFC title to remain as is? >>>> >>>> Original: >>>> >>>> BGP Link-State Shortest Path First (SPF) Routing >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Acee >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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/rfc9815 >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> RFC Editor/ar -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
