All done from my perspective, approved. Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 2, 2026, at 7:05 PM, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> > wrote: > Hi Tony and Jordan, > > Thank you for your replies. We have updated the files accordingly. > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992.xml__;!!NpxR!gvwJIn9egSjV5TJDNcRBGlWwVUcjwlOReZTMqmhFBeTcCgxyWN1SxxcDwDocWPyQutPYfpBjqiWgOnRWcHWuSOeL$ > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992.txt__;!!NpxR!gvwJIn9egSjV5TJDNcRBGlWwVUcjwlOReZTMqmhFBeTcCgxyWN1SxxcDwDocWPyQutPYfpBjqiWgOnRWcJS7z2xD$ > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992.html__;!!NpxR!gvwJIn9egSjV5TJDNcRBGlWwVUcjwlOReZTMqmhFBeTcCgxyWN1SxxcDwDocWPyQutPYfpBjqiWgOnRWcN-8pKrm$ > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992.pdf__;!!NpxR!gvwJIn9egSjV5TJDNcRBGlWwVUcjwlOReZTMqmhFBeTcCgxyWN1SxxcDwDocWPyQutPYfpBjqiWgOnRWcENi2VEh$ > > The relevant diff files have been posted here: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992-diff.html__;!!NpxR!gvwJIn9egSjV5TJDNcRBGlWwVUcjwlOReZTMqmhFBeTcCgxyWN1SxxcDwDocWPyQutPYfpBjqiWgOnRWcBEIlnvR$ > (comprehensive diff) > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992-auth48diff.html__;!!NpxR!gvwJIn9egSjV5TJDNcRBGlWwVUcjwlOReZTMqmhFBeTcCgxyWN1SxxcDwDocWPyQutPYfpBjqiWgOnRWcF-jvfAs$ > (Final Review changes) > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992-auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!NpxR!gvwJIn9egSjV5TJDNcRBGlWwVUcjwlOReZTMqmhFBeTcCgxyWN1SxxcDwDocWPyQutPYfpBjqiWgOnRWcBzMIQRc$ > (Final Review changes side by side) > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992-lastdiff.html__;!!NpxR!gvwJIn9egSjV5TJDNcRBGlWwVUcjwlOReZTMqmhFBeTcCgxyWN1SxxcDwDocWPyQutPYfpBjqiWgOnRWcLqa1fhY$ > (last version to this one) > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992-lastrfcdiff.html__;!!NpxR!gvwJIn9egSjV5TJDNcRBGlWwVUcjwlOReZTMqmhFBeTcCgxyWN1SxxcDwDocWPyQutPYfpBjqiWgOnRWcLhctr_F$ > (rfcdiff between last version and this) > > Please let us know if any further updates are necessary. Once we receive > approvals from each author, we will move 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!gvwJIn9egSjV5TJDNcRBGlWwVUcjwlOReZTMqmhFBeTcCgxyWN1SxxcDwDocWPyQutPYfpBjqiWgOnRWcCIpAkZN$ > > Thank you, > Alanna Paloma > RFC Production Center > >> On Jun 2, 2026, at 2:47 PM, Tony Przygienda <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> AFAIS the email was already on my tracker, just not as primary. tried to add >> again just in case >> >> On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 2:11 PM Head, Jordan <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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: >> >> • Section 1 - Typo >> >> the first sentence has RFIT instead of RIFT >> >> • 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...” >> >> • 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]
