H Alice, Thanks for your work on this document. I'm very happy with it. I do have a few cosmetic changes below for consistency. These include:
1. Get rid of the unique term and acronym Link State NLRI Database (LSNDB)
as this is not used in RFC 9552 or anywhere else. Simply use LSDB.
2. Consistently point to the error handling in section 7.1.
Refer to the attached RFC diff
Thanks,
Acee
<<< text/html; x-unix-mode=0644; name="rfc9815.orig.diff.html": Unrecognized >>>
> On Jul 11, 2025, at 5:37 PM, Alice Russo <aru...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > Acee, > > Thank you for your reply; the files have been updated accordingly. Please > refresh the same URLs as below > (https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815-lastrfcdiff.html shows only the > most recent changes). Remaining question: > > In Section 6.5.1, should "BGP-LS-LINK NLRI" be "BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI" or > otherwise? > > > Other notes: > > * FYI, the short title (which appears in the running header of the PDF) has > been updated as well. It is similar to that of 9816. Please let us know if > you prefer otherwise. > > -- 9815 > Original: BGP Link-State SPF Routing > Curent: BGP-LS SPF Routing > > -- 9816 > Original: BGP-SPF Applicability > Current: BGP-LS SPF Applicability > > * FYI, the title of Section 5.1 has been updated to "BGP-LS-SPF SAFI" (added > one hyphen to match usage in the text that follows and in 9816). > > RFC Editor/ar > >> On Jul 11, 2025, at 1:06 PM, Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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
