Hi Alanna, Sorry to flip back and forth, can you revert Tony’s e-mail back to what it was previously? He can add that e-mail to his datatracker account as time permits.
[email protected] Other than that, a couple of edits: 1. Section 1 - Typo the first sentence has RFIT instead of RIFT 2. Section 3 - Missing word CURRENT: “While no explicit restrictions are placed on how Key-Value elements are or how they are used…” SHOULD BE: “While no explicit restrictions are placed on how Key-Value elements are used...” 3. Section 3.1 - Missing article CURRENT: “…will select the KV TIE with highest System ID...” SHOULD BE: “…will select the KV TIE with the highest System ID...” From: Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 at 5:32 PM To: Head, Jordan <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Przygienda, Tony <[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: Final review: RFC-to-be 9992 (draft-ietf-rift-kv-tie-structure-and-processing) Hi Jordan, Thank you for your replies. We have updated as requested. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992.xml__;!!NpxR!nbE_lfaRRMS1LgijK1ecW-H6EdTXoEbekrsKu56KKh2KRYS0WHm0naRAJAn0k382_AC8TIWeyMPL9KRB4nj-Z3I3$ https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992.txt__;!!NpxR!nbE_lfaRRMS1LgijK1ecW-H6EdTXoEbekrsKu56KKh2KRYS0WHm0naRAJAn0k382_AC8TIWeyMPL9KRB4r7LnyyV$ https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992.html__;!!NpxR!nbE_lfaRRMS1LgijK1ecW-H6EdTXoEbekrsKu56KKh2KRYS0WHm0naRAJAn0k382_AC8TIWeyMPL9KRB4uha_hUb$ https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992.pdf__;!!NpxR!nbE_lfaRRMS1LgijK1ecW-H6EdTXoEbekrsKu56KKh2KRYS0WHm0naRAJAn0k382_AC8TIWeyMPL9KRB4o5SJhJJ$ The relevant diff files have been posted here: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992-diff.html__;!!NpxR!nbE_lfaRRMS1LgijK1ecW-H6EdTXoEbekrsKu56KKh2KRYS0WHm0naRAJAn0k382_AC8TIWeyMPL9KRB4jaQ12yp$ (comprehensive diff) https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992-auth48diff.html__;!!NpxR!nbE_lfaRRMS1LgijK1ecW-H6EdTXoEbekrsKu56KKh2KRYS0WHm0naRAJAn0k382_AC8TIWeyMPL9KRB4l3D8D_f$ (Final Review changes) https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992-auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!NpxR!nbE_lfaRRMS1LgijK1ecW-H6EdTXoEbekrsKu56KKh2KRYS0WHm0naRAJAn0k382_AC8TIWeyMPL9KRB4oU7IMgU$ (Final Review changes side by side) Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further updates you may have. Note that we do not make changes once a document is published as an RFC. We will await approvals from each party listed on the Final Review status page below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. For the Final Review status of this document, please see: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc9992/__;!!NpxR!nbE_lfaRRMS1LgijK1ecW-H6EdTXoEbekrsKu56KKh2KRYS0WHm0naRAJAn0k382_AC8TIWeyMPL9KRB4rBnpD-7$ Thank you, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Jun 1, 2026, at 6:45 AM, Head, Jordan > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sorry about that, ignore my first point. > > Let’s change it to [email protected] > > From: Head, Jordan <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 at 9:44 AM > To: [email protected] <[email protected]>, > [email protected] <[email protected]>, Przygienda, Tony > <[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]> > Subject: Re: Final review: RFC-to-be 9992 > (draft-ietf-rift-kv-tie-structure-and-processing) > > Alanna, Alice, > > Thank you for reviewing and editing our document! > > Replies inline as jhead>> > > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Date: Friday, May 29, 2026 at 6:33 PM > To: Head, Jordan <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]>, Przygienda, Tony <[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]> > Subject: Re: Final review: RFC-to-be 9992 > (draft-ietf-rift-kv-tie-structure-and-processing) > > Authors, > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) > the following > questions, which are also in the source file. > > 1) <!--[rfced] Tony, we note that the email address used in this document > does not match your email addresses as they appear here: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/person/Tony*20Przygienda__;JQ!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHP4-EVRew$ > > Which email address would you like to appear in the RFC? > --> > > jhead>> Spoke with Tony, the HPE e-mail is correct. > > > 2) <!--[rfced] May we clarify this citation as follows? > > Original: > [RIFT-AUTO-EVPN] is an example of this type of implementation. > > Perhaps: > For example, [RIFT-AUTO-EVPN] describes this type of implementation. > --> > > jhead>> Good with this. > > 3) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether this note should be in the <aside> > element. > It is defined as "a container for content that is semantically less important > or tangential to the content that surrounds it" > (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary*aside__;Iw!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHP6jMKCS0$ > ). > > Original: > *NOTE:*Like [RFC9692], this section uses terms to denote > directionality, specifically, "northbound" meaning "toward the top of > the fabric" and "southbound" meaning "toward the bottom of the > fabric". > --> > > jhead>> Yes, <aside> works here. > > 4) <!--[rfced] In Figure 6, is the second comma necessary? > > Original: > | (System ID, > | Level), > > Perhaps: > | (System ID, > | Level) > —> > > jhead>> A matter of taste really, it can be removed. > > 5) <!-- [rfced] Three lines in Figure 9 exceeded the 69-character line limit. > We updated as follows; please let us if they should be modified otherwise. > > Original: > /// given a system ID delivers the bits set by the according Bloom Filter in > the > southbound > /// key value target. > pub (crate) fn target2bits(target: UnsignedSystemID) -> KeyValueTargetType { > (0 as usize .. 3) > .map(|s| { > let rot = (target ^ RANDOMSEEDS[s]).rotate_left(s as _); > rot.to_ne_bytes().iter().fold(0, |v: u8, nv| v.rotate_right(4) ^ > *nv) % 64 > }) > .fold(0, |v, nv| v | (1 << nv)) > } > > Current: > /// given a system ID delivers the bits set by the according > /// Bloom Filter in the southbound key value target. > pub (crate) fn target2bits(target: UnsignedSystemID) -> > KeyValueTargetType { > (0 as usize .. 3) > .map(|s| { > let rot = (target ^ RANDOMSEEDS[s]).rotate_left(s as _); > rot.to_ne_bytes().iter().fold(0, > |v: u8, nv| v.rotate_right(4) ^ *nv) % 64 > }) > .fold(0, |v, nv| v | (1 << nv)) > } > --> > > jhead>> This is fine. > > 6) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of the sourcecode element > in > Section 3.2 in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the current list of > preferred values for "type" > (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types__;!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHPsfFFxuk$ > ) > does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us know. > Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set. > > In addition, review each artwork element. Specifically, > should any artwork element be tagged as sourcecode or another > element? > --> > > jhead>> Not setting it is fine. No other figures need to be set as > <sourcecode> > > 7) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for the following abbreviations > per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each > expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. > > Link State Database (LSDB) > Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) > --> > > jhead>> I’m good with your expansions. > > 8) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online > Style Guide > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/*inclusive_language__;Iw!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHPTb-pMFc$ > > > and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically > result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. > > Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should > still be reviewed as a best practice. > --> > > jhead>> No further changes required here. Thanks for the reminder. > > Thank you. > > Alanna Paloma and Alice Russo > RFC Production Center > > > On May 29, 2026, [email protected] wrote: > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > RFC Author(s): > -------------- > > Final Review for RFC-to-be 9992 > <draft-ietf-rift-kv-tie-structure-and-processing> > > 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, please see the Unavailable Authors > section > (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/rfc-publication-process*unavailable-authors__;Iw!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHPVYNBkQk$ > ). > > 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info__;!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHPdp1wxXw$ > ). > > * 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary__;!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHPOACCRDc$ > >. > > * 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHPRq5grgI$ > > * The archive itself: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/__;!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHPjeFl08g$ > > * 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992.xml__;!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHPpTauVSg$ > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992.html__;!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHP5RckF0M$ > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992.pdf__;!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHPtHkCfXc$ > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992.txt__;!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHPPL3b3bQ$ > > Diff file of the text: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992-diff.html__;!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHPLWZSVv4$ > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992-rfcdiff.html__;!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHPJbWzwIs$ > (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992-xmldiff1.html__;!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHPSGvzgzg$ > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > Details on the status of your Final Review are here: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc9992/__;!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHPa884eUQ$ > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC 9992 (draft-ietf-rift-kv-tie-structure-and-processing) > > Title : Routing in Fat Trees (RIFT) Key/Value Topology Information > Elements Structure and Processing > Author(s) : J. Head, Ed., T. Przygienda > WG Chair(s) : Zhaohui Zhang, Jeff Tantsura > Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
