Hi Reshma and Jeff, Thank you for your replies!
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jan 8, 2026, at 11:05 AM, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > > One minor note to the RPC: The foundational base document for BGP extended > communities, RFC 4360, is undergoing a -bis in IDR. The link bandwidth draft > will proceed prior to publication for RFC 4360-bis. As Reshma points out > below, the terminology and practices come from RFC 4360. > > RFC 4360-bis will be undergoing working group last call soon. Reviewing for > consistencies in terminology and capitalization may be desirable. > > Reference: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chairs-idr-rfc4360-bis-01 > > > -- Jeff (wearing IDR co-chair and shepherd hats) > > >> On Jan 8, 2026, at 11:52 AM, Reshma Das <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> ++ pradosh (new mailing address) >> >> >> Hi Sarah, >> >> Please find my response below (RD>): >> >> 1) As there may have been multiple updates made to the document during Last >> Call, >> please review the current version of the document: >> >> * Is the text in the Abstract still accurate? >> >> RD> Yes, the text in Abstract is accurate. >> >> * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments >> sections current? >> >> RD> This has been updated in version-24. >> >> >> 2) Please share any style information that could help us with editing your >> document. For example: >> >> * Is your document's format or its terminology based on another document? >> If so, please provide a pointer to that document (e.g., this document's >> terminology should match DNS terminology in RFC 9499). >> * Is there a pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms? (e.g., field >> names >> should have initial capitalization; parameter names should be in double >> quotes; >> <tt/> should be used for token names; etc.) >> >> RD> This document uses well-established terminology. >> The full name of the Link Bandwidth Extended Community is >> used throughout to refer to the new extended community. >> >> 3) Please review the entries in the References section carefully with >> the following in mind. Note that we will update as follows unless we >> hear otherwise at this time: >> >> * References to obsoleted RFCs will be updated to point to the current >> RFC on the topic in accordance with Section 4.8.6 of RFC 7322 >> (RFC Style Guide). >> >> * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be >> updated to point to the replacement I-D. >> >> * References to documents from other organizations that have been >> superseded will be updated to their superseding version. >> >> Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use >> idnits >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BroHw_knp0SZgyRcGH3mxpq6QSm3M-N3Zaaa4zFw8hrEqPof_-Aib_4BheftR6FkjHigI15CZ2oHz2Bu-yHmdvw-BA$>. >> You can also help the >> IETF Tools Team by testing idnits3 >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BroHw_knp0SZgyRcGH3mxpq6QSm3M-N3Zaaa4zFw8hrEqPof_-Aib_4BheftR6FkjHigI15CZ2oHz2Bu-yEj-g0YlQ$ >> > >> with your document and reporting any issues to them. >> >> RD> All the reference are current and point to valid links. >> >> 4) Is there any text that should be handled extra cautiously? For example, >> are >> there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? >> >> RD> As noted in Appendix A, this document has a long history, and there are >> existing >> implementations already deployed in the field. The authors have collaborated >> to >> ensure that none of these implementations will be considered non-compliant >> once >> this document is published as an RFC. >> Accordingly, the protocol procedures and error handling have been refined >> through >> multiple iterations with this objective in mind. >> >> >> 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this >> document? >> >> RD> None. >> >> >> Thanks & Regards, >> Reshma Das >> >> >> Get Outlook for Mac >> Juniper Business Use Only >> From: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> >> Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2026 at 12:52 PM >> To: Reshma Das <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] >> <[email protected]>, [email protected]<[email protected]>, >> [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] >> <[email protected]>, [email protected]<[email protected]>, [email protected] >> <[email protected]>, [email protected] >> <[email protected]>, [email protected] >> <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: Document intake questions about >> <draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth-23> >> >> [External Email. Be cautious of content] >> >> >> Hi Reshma, >> >> Thanks for the heads up! I've emailed the AD for approval. >> >> In the meantime, could you send along your answers to the intake form? If >> the answer to a question is "updated in version -24", feel free to answer >> accordingly. >> >> Sincerely, >> Sarah Tarrant >> RFC Production Center >> >> > On Jan 7, 2026, at 2:41 PM, Reshma Das <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Sarah, >> > >> > A new version has been submitted with all the changes mentioned below. >> > >> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HqX32akNR4RIgo3A-Etx8c-2ebjj3jrhXj84F0HtVPmfTlyB-e4V4Fb-Tc9zmWrMhSmq5sFWobNL7yMr1SdOfpV2-Q$ >> > >> > >> > Thanks & Regards, >> > Reshma Das >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Get Outlook for Mac >> > >> > Juniper Business Use Only >> > From: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> >> > Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2026 at 9:10 AM >> > To: Reshma Das <[email protected]> >> > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] >> > <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, >> > [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] >> > <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, >> > [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] >> > <[email protected]>, [email protected] >> > <[email protected]> >> > Subject: Re: Document intake questions about >> > <draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth-23> >> > >> > [External Email. Be cautious of content] >> > >> > >> > Hi Reshma, >> > >> > Thank you for the update! Yes, please submit a new version through the >> > datatracker with those additions. >> > >> > Sincerely, >> > Sarah Tarrant >> > RFC Production Center >> > >> > > On Jan 6, 2026, at 11:06 AM, Reshma Das <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > Hi Sarah, >> > > >> > > While reviewing the questions, I identified an issue with one of the >> > > authors’ email addresses. I am trying to reach out and rectify this and >> > > will provide an update as soon as possible. >> > > >> > > Additionally, I am updating the Juniper team’s email IDs to their HPE >> > > addresses. (Post HPE acquisition of Juniper) >> > > >> > > We have also received the following comment from IANA, which needs to be >> > > incorporated: >> > > >> > > "NOTE: The IANA Considerations section should be updated to remove the >> > > lowercase "transitive" and "non-transitive" from what appears to be the >> > > "Name" field. The registries already identify their contents as >> > > "transitive" and "non-transitive," and the paragraph above each name >> > > does so as well. We are also removing "Extended Community" from the >> > > name, as all assignments in these registries are for extended >> > > communities." >> > > >> > > Given these changes, I am planning to publish a new version. Please >> > > confirm if this approach is acceptable. >> > > >> > > Best regards, >> > > Reshma Das >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Juniper Business Use Only >> > > From: Reshma Das <[email protected]> >> > > Date: Monday, January 5, 2026 at 7:57 AM >> > > To: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]>, [email protected] >> > > <[email protected]>, [email protected]<[email protected]>, >> > > [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] >> > > <[email protected]>, [email protected]<[email protected]> >> > > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] >> > > <[email protected]>, [email protected] >> > > <[email protected]>, [email protected] >> > > <[email protected]> >> > > Subject: Re: Document intake questions about >> > > <draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth-23> >> > > >> > > Hi Sarah, >> > > Thank you for reaching out. I’m catching up on emails and will review >> > > this today. I’ll get back to you before EOD. >> > > Thanks & Regards, >> > > Reshma Das >> > > >> > > >> > > Get Outlook for Mac >> > > From: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> >> > > Date: Monday, January 5, 2026 at 7:53 AM >> > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]>, Reshma Das >> > > <[email protected]>, [email protected]<[email protected]>, >> > > [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] >> > > <[email protected]>, [email protected]<[email protected]> >> > > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] >> > > <[email protected]>, [email protected] >> > > <[email protected]>, [email protected] >> > > <[email protected]> >> > > Subject: Re: Document intake questions about >> > > <draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth-23> >> > > >> > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] >> > > >> > > >> > > Hi Author(s), >> > > >> > > This is a friendly reminder that we await answers to the questions below >> > > before continuing with the editing process for this document. >> > > >> > > Thank you, >> > > Sarah Tarrant >> > > RFC Production Center >> > > >> > > > On Dec 22, 2025, at 3:17 PM, Sarah Tarrant >> > > > <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Author(s), >> > > > >> > > > Congratulations, your document has been successfully added to the RFC >> > > > Editor queue! >> > > > The team at the RFC Production Center (RPC) is looking forward to >> > > > working with you >> > > > as your document moves forward toward publication. To help reduce >> > > > processing time >> > > > and improve editing accuracy, please respond to the questions below. >> > > > Please confer >> > > > with your coauthors (or authors of other documents if your document is >> > > > in a >> > > > cluster) as necessary prior to taking action in order to streamline >> > > > communication. >> > > > If your document has multiple authors, only one author needs to reply >> > > > to this >> > > > message. >> > > > >> > > > As you read through the rest of this email: >> > > > >> > > > * If you need/want to make updates to your document, we encourage you >> > > > to make those >> > > > changes and resubmit to the Datatracker. This allows for the easy >> > > > creation of diffs, >> > > > which facilitates review by interested parties (e.g., authors, ADs, >> > > > doc shepherds). >> > > > * If you feel no updates to the document are necessary, please reply >> > > > with any >> > > > applicable rationale/comments. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Please note that the RPC team will not work on your document until we >> > > > hear from you >> > > > (that is, your document will remain in AUTH state until we receive a >> > > > reply). Even >> > > > if you don't have guidance or don't feel that you need to make any >> > > > updates to the >> > > > document, you need to let us know. After we hear from you, your >> > > > document will start >> > > > moving through the queue. You will be able to review and approve our >> > > > updates >> > > > during AUTH48. >> > > > >> > > > Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have at >> > > > [email protected]. >> > > > >> > > > Thank you! >> > > > The RPC Team >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > >> > > > 1) As there may have been multiple updates made to the document during >> > > > Last Call, >> > > > please review the current version of the document: >> > > > >> > > > * Is the text in the Abstract still accurate? >> > > > * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments >> > > > sections current? >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > 2) Please share any style information that could help us with editing >> > > > your >> > > > document. For example: >> > > > >> > > > * Is your document's format or its terminology based on another >> > > > document? >> > > > If so, please provide a pointer to that document (e.g., this document's >> > > > terminology should match DNS terminology in RFC 9499). >> > > > * Is there a pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms? (e.g., >> > > > field names >> > > > should have initial capitalization; parameter names should be in >> > > > double quotes; >> > > > <tt/> should be used for token names; etc.) >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > 3) Please review the entries in the References section carefully with >> > > > the following in mind. Note that we will update as follows unless we >> > > > hear otherwise at this time: >> > > > >> > > > * References to obsoleted RFCs will be updated to point to the current >> > > > RFC on the topic in accordance with Section 4.8.6 of RFC 7322 >> > > > (RFC Style Guide). >> > > > >> > > > * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be >> > > > updated to point to the replacement I-D. >> > > > >> > > > * References to documents from other organizations that have been >> > > > superseded will be updated to their superseding version. >> > > > >> > > > Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use >> > > > idnits >> > > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BroHw_knp0SZgyRcGH3mxpq6QSm3M-N3Zaaa4zFw8hrEqPof_-Aib_4BheftR6FkjHigI15CZ2oHz2Bu-yHmdvw-BA$ >> > > > >. You can also help the >> > > > IETF Tools Team by testing idnits3 >> > > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BroHw_knp0SZgyRcGH3mxpq6QSm3M-N3Zaaa4zFw8hrEqPof_-Aib_4BheftR6FkjHigI15CZ2oHz2Bu-yEj-g0YlQ$ >> > > > > >> > > > with your document and reporting any issues to them. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > 4) Is there any text that should be handled extra cautiously? For >> > > > example, are >> > > > there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while >> > > > editing this >> > > > document? >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> On Dec 22, 2025, at 3:14 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >> Author(s), >> > > >> >> > > >> Your document draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth-23, which has been >> > > >> approved for publication as >> > > >> an RFC, has been added to the RFC Editor queue >> > > >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BroHw_knp0SZgyRcGH3mxpq6QSm3M-N3Zaaa4zFw8hrEqPof_-Aib_4BheftR6FkjHigI15CZ2oHz2Bu-yHmB0oBKQ$ >> > > >> >. >> > > >> >> > > >> If your XML file was submitted using the I-D submission tool >> > > >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BroHw_knp0SZgyRcGH3mxpq6QSm3M-N3Zaaa4zFw8hrEqPof_-Aib_4BheftR6FkjHigI15CZ2oHz2Bu-yGyXyVZzg$ >> > > >> >, we have already retrieved it >> > > >> and have started working on it. >> > > >> >> > > >> If you did not submit the file via the I-D submission tool, or >> > > >> if you have an updated version (e.g., updated contact information), >> > > >> please send us the file at this time by attaching it >> > > >> in your reply to this message and specifying any differences >> > > >> between the approved I-D and the file that you are providing. >> > > >> >> > > >> You will receive a separate message from us asking for style input. >> > > >> Please respond to that message. When we have received your response, >> > > >> your document will then move through the queue. The first step that >> > > >> we take as your document moves through the queue is converting it to >> > > >> RFCXML (if it is not already in RFCXML) and applying the formatting >> > > >> steps listed at >> > > >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/pubprocess/how-we-update/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BroHw_knp0SZgyRcGH3mxpq6QSm3M-N3Zaaa4zFw8hrEqPof_-Aib_4BheftR6FkjHigI15CZ2oHz2Bu-yHH7C8yTQ$ >> > > >> >. >> > > >> Next, we will edit for clarity and apply the style guide >> > > >> (<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BroHw_knp0SZgyRcGH3mxpq6QSm3M-N3Zaaa4zFw8hrEqPof_-Aib_4BheftR6FkjHigI15CZ2oHz2Bu-yE4lGvRCg$ >> > > >> >). >> > > >> >> > > >> You can check the status of your document at >> > > >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BroHw_knp0SZgyRcGH3mxpq6QSm3M-N3Zaaa4zFw8hrEqPof_-Aib_4BheftR6FkjHigI15CZ2oHz2Bu-yHmB0oBKQ$ >> > > >> >. >> > > >> >> > > >> You will receive automatic notifications as your document changes >> > > >> queue state (for more information about these states, please see >> > > >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/queue/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BroHw_knp0SZgyRcGH3mxpq6QSm3M-N3Zaaa4zFw8hrEqPof_-Aib_4BheftR6FkjHigI15CZ2oHz2Bu-yFfN6rBwA$ >> > > >> >). When we have completed >> > > >> our edits, we will move your document to AUTH48 state and ask you >> > > >> to perform a final review of the document. >> > > >> >> > > >> Please let us know if you have any questions. >> > > >> >> > > >> Thank you. >> > > >> >> > > >> The RFC Editor Team >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
