Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file.
1) <!--[rfced] Pradosh, we note that your email address in this document does not match your email address in the Datatracker. Please let us know which one you prefer within the RFC, and please consider updating your Datatracker account if it's not that one. This Document: [email protected] --> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> 3) <!-- [rfced] In the text below, what does "connecting to a remote network" refer to? How may we clarify? Original: The Link Bandwidth Extended Community is defined as a BGP extended community that carries the bandwidth information of a router, represented by BGP Next Hop, connecting to a remote network. Perhaps: The Link Bandwidth Extended Community is defined as a BGP extended community that carries the bandwidth information of a router (represented by BGP next hop) and connects to a remote network. Or: The Link Bandwidth Extended Community is defined as a BGP extended community that carries the bandwidth information of a router (represented by BGP Next Hop) that is connecting to a remote network. --> 4) <!-- [rfced] May we adjust this text for readability? Specifically, may we move "inconsistent behavior could ..." to the beginning of the first sentence, and add "so then" to the second sentence? Original: In circumstances where networks have deployed a mixture of implementations supporting this document's procedures for both transitivity types, and older implementations that only understand one transitivity type, inconsistent behavior could result. A prime example is when a route received by a BGP speaker contains both a transitive and a non-transitive Link Bandwidth Extended Community and that BGP speaker performs an operation that updates only one of the Link Bandwidth Extended Communities, the other community may have an inconsistent value. As a result, downstream BGP speakers that may receive such routes may perform inappropriate weighted load balancing. Perhaps: Inconsistent behavior could occur when networks have deployed a mixture of implementations supporting this document's procedures for both transitivity types, or have deployed older implementations that only understand one transitivity type. A prime example is when a route received by a BGP speaker contains both a transitive and a non-transitive Link Bandwidth Extended Community, and that BGP speaker performs an operation that updates only one of the Link Bandwidth Extended Communities, so then the other community may have an inconsistent value. As a result, downstream BGP speakers that may receive such routes may perform inappropriate weighted load balancing. --> 5) <!-- [rfced] What is meant to be "filtered" in the text below? May we adjust as follows to clarify? Original: One option would be to filter either at advertisement time on the older BGP speaker the unsupported transitivity type of Link Bandwidth Extended Community - if the implementation is capable of such filtering. Perhaps: One option would be to filter the unsupported transitivity type of the Link Bandwidth Extended Community at advertisement time on the older BGP speaker, if the implementation is capable of such filtering. --> 6) <!--[rfced] Is Appendix A (Document History), which describes an intentional change between draft versions, needed in the RFC? Seems this was relevant as the draft was undergoing revision; is it relevant in the RFC? Current: Appendix A. Document History The BGP Link Bandwidth Extended Community has evolved over several versions of the IETF draft. In the earlier versions up to draft- ietf-idr-link-bandwidth-08, only the non-transitive version of the Link Bandwidth Extended Community was supported. However, starting from draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth-09, both transitive and non- transitive versions of the Link Bandwidth Extended Community are supported. A BGP speaker (sender or receiver) needs to be upgraded to support the procedures defined in this document to provide full interoperability for both transitive and non-transitive versions of the Link Bandwidth Extended Community. In order to simplify implementations, it is not a goal to provide interoperability by upgrading only the Route Reflector (RR). --> 7) <!-- [rfced] Please review the following questions and changes regarding the abbreviations used in this document: a) We note the following different uses of the term below. We have updated the first instance in this document to "Autonomous System Number (ASN)", and we have updated all instances after to use the abbreviation "ASN". Please review these changes for accuracy. Autonomous System (AS) number Autonomous System number ASNs AS number b) We note that "Local-RIB" is expanded as "Local Routing Information Base (Local-RIB)". Should the abbreviations below also be expanded or should a definition be referenced? Adj-RIB-In Adj-RIB-Out c) We have added expansions for abbreviations upon first use per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. Route Reflector (RR) --> 8) <!-- [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 "tradition" 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. Original: Traditional equal load-balancing routing does not account for... --> Thank you. Kaelin Foody and Alice Russo RFC Production Center On Jun 1, 2026, [email protected] wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** RFC Author(s): -------------- Final Review for RFC-to-be 10005 <draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth> Your document is now available for Final Review (previously 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; see the Unavailable Authors section (https://authors.ietf.org/rfc-publication-process#unavailable-authors). 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 * [email protected] (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). * [email protected], which is an archival mailing list to preserve discussion about the document while in the RPC editorial queue; 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, [email protected] 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/rfc10005.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10005.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10005.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10005.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10005-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10005-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10005-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- Details on the status of your Final Review are here: https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc10005/ Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC 10005 (draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth) Title : BGP Link Bandwidth Extended Community Author(s) : P. Mohapatra, R. Das, Ed., S. Mohanty, Ed., S. Krier, R. Szarecki, A. Gattani WG Chair(s) : Sue Hares, Keyur Patel, Jeffrey Haas Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
