Hi Alice, Sorry, I missed the question.
> On Jul 15, 2025, at 3:40 PM, Alice Russo <aru...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > Acee, > > Sorry if I have missed your reply to this question: >> In Section 6.5.1, should "BGP-LS-LINK NLRI" be "BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI" or >> otherwise? Yes - this should be “BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI”. Thanks, Acee > > Thank you. > RFC Editor/ar > >> On Jul 15, 2025, at 12:38 PM, Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Alice, >> >> I approve this version of the document. >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >>> On Jul 15, 2025, at 2:58 PM, Alice Russo <aru...@staff.rfc-editor.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Acee, >>> >>> Thank you for your reply. 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 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 13, 2025, at 10:00 AM, Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> <rfc9815.orig.diff.html> >>>> >>>>> 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
