Hi Alice, > On Jul 11, 2025, at 3:48 PM, Alice Russo <aru...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > Acee, > > We have updated the authors' contact information as requested. 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) > > This diff file shows only the changes since the last posted version: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816-lastrfcdiff.html > > As mentioned in a separate mail re: 9815, we suggest considering this update > to the title (remove hyphen and add acronym). > > -- 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
Sure, 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/rfc9816 > > Thank you. > RFC Editor/ar > >> On Jul 10, 2025, at 4:17 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, 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]. >> >> Sure. This is an "Informational" status document. >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> 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] >> >> Sure - just not BGP - .... >> >> 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/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
