Hi Tony, Jordan, and Dmitry, This is another friendly reminder that we await your reviews and approvals of the updated files.
The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692.pdf The relevant diff files have been posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9692 Best regards, RFC Editor/ap > On Jan 22, 2025, at 9:00 AM, Jordan Head <jh...@juniper.net> wrote: > > Thanks for your patience on this. Tony and I are still doing a thorough > review of what we have. > > Juniper Business Use Only > From: Alanna Paloma <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > Date: Wednesday, January 22, 2025 at 11:26 AM > To: Antoni Przygienda <p...@juniper.net>, Jordan Head <jh...@juniper.net>, > f...@yandex-team.ru <f...@yandex-team.ru> > Cc: Alankar Sharma <as3...@gmail.com>, > pascal.thub...@gmail.com<pascal.thub...@gmail.com>, > brunorijs...@gmail.com<brunorijs...@gmail.com>, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org > <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, rift-...@ietf.org <rift-...@ietf.org>, > rift-cha...@ietf.org <rift-cha...@ietf.org>, ext-zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn > <zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn>, james.n.guich...@futurewei.com > <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9692 <draft-ietf-rift-rift-24> for your review > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > Hi Tony, Jordan, and Dmitry, > > This is a friendly reminder that we await your reviews and approvals of the > updated files. Once we have received your approvals, we will move this > document forward in the publication process. > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GeQ4qHD4Elr83mURhv2OFHuuUKEfpPUnmzj93FexuOwq2uSWvclaILY3zE_hiLAGsYIuLxX7g7LOZFYXsBnHYN7M$ > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GeQ4qHD4Elr83mURhv2OFHuuUKEfpPUnmzj93FexuOwq2uSWvclaILY3zE_hiLAGsYIuLxX7g7LOZFYXsGNB9PP9$ > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GeQ4qHD4Elr83mURhv2OFHuuUKEfpPUnmzj93FexuOwq2uSWvclaILY3zE_hiLAGsYIuLxX7g7LOZFYXsDeh7F1c$ > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GeQ4qHD4Elr83mURhv2OFHuuUKEfpPUnmzj93FexuOwq2uSWvclaILY3zE_hiLAGsYIuLxX7g7LOZFYXsCm2KNTk$ > > The relevant diff files have been posted here: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GeQ4qHD4Elr83mURhv2OFHuuUKEfpPUnmzj93FexuOwq2uSWvclaILY3zE_hiLAGsYIuLxX7g7LOZFYXsNrwmalq$ > (comprehensive diff) > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692-auth48diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GeQ4qHD4Elr83mURhv2OFHuuUKEfpPUnmzj93FexuOwq2uSWvclaILY3zE_hiLAGsYIuLxX7g7LOZFYXsA-fqbod$ > (AUTH48 changes) > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9692__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GeQ4qHD4Elr83mURhv2OFHuuUKEfpPUnmzj93FexuOwq2uSWvclaILY3zE_hiLAGsYIuLxX7g7LOZFYXsPZEQZbx$ > > Best regards, > RFC Editor/ap > > > On Jan 15, 2025, at 8:16 AM, Alanna Paloma <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > > wrote: > > > > Hi Alankar, > > > > Thank you for your approval. It has been noted: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9692__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GeQ4qHD4Elr83mURhv2OFHuuUKEfpPUnmzj93FexuOwq2uSWvclaILY3zE_hiLAGsYIuLxX7g7LOZFYXsPZEQZbx$ > > > > Best regards, > > RFC Editor/ap > > > >> On Jan 14, 2025, at 8:53 AM, Alankar Sharma <as3...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Please record my approval. Thanks for all the hard work. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Alankar > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 7:32 PM Alanna Paloma > >> <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > >> Authors, > >> > >> Thank you for the updated XML file and for resolving the spacing issue > >> > >> As all of our questions have been addressed, we will await any further > >> changes you may have and approvals from Tony, Jordan, Alankar, Bruno, and > >> Dmitry prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. > >> > >> The files have been posted here (please refresh): > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GeQ4qHD4Elr83mURhv2OFHuuUKEfpPUnmzj93FexuOwq2uSWvclaILY3zE_hiLAGsYIuLxX7g7LOZFYXsBnHYN7M$ > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GeQ4qHD4Elr83mURhv2OFHuuUKEfpPUnmzj93FexuOwq2uSWvclaILY3zE_hiLAGsYIuLxX7g7LOZFYXsGNB9PP9$ > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GeQ4qHD4Elr83mURhv2OFHuuUKEfpPUnmzj93FexuOwq2uSWvclaILY3zE_hiLAGsYIuLxX7g7LOZFYXsDeh7F1c$ > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GeQ4qHD4Elr83mURhv2OFHuuUKEfpPUnmzj93FexuOwq2uSWvclaILY3zE_hiLAGsYIuLxX7g7LOZFYXsCm2KNTk$ > >> > >> The relevant diff files have been posted here: > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GeQ4qHD4Elr83mURhv2OFHuuUKEfpPUnmzj93FexuOwq2uSWvclaILY3zE_hiLAGsYIuLxX7g7LOZFYXsNrwmalq$ > >> (comprehensive diff) > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692-auth48diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GeQ4qHD4Elr83mURhv2OFHuuUKEfpPUnmzj93FexuOwq2uSWvclaILY3zE_hiLAGsYIuLxX7g7LOZFYXsA-fqbod$ > >> (AUTH48 changes) > >> > >> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9692__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GeQ4qHD4Elr83mURhv2OFHuuUKEfpPUnmzj93FexuOwq2uSWvclaILY3zE_hiLAGsYIuLxX7g7LOZFYXsPZEQZbx$ > >> > >> Best regards, > >> RFC Editor/ap > >> > >>> On Jan 8, 2025, at 1:30 PM, Jordan Head <jh...@juniper.net> wrote: > >>> > >>> I’ve attached the new XML document that addresses the issues you > >>> mentioned. > >>> Thank you > >>> Jordan > >>> > >>> Juniper Business Use Only > >>> From: Jordan Head <jh...@juniper.net> > >>> Date: Wednesday, January 8, 2025 at 3:28 PM > >>> To: Alanna Paloma <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > >>> Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, Antoni > >>> Przygienda <p...@juniper.net>, as3...@gmail.com <as3...@gmail.com>, > >>> pascal.thub...@gmail.com <pascal.thub...@gmail.com>, > >>> brunorijs...@gmail.com <brunorijs...@gmail.com>, > >>> f...@yandex-team.ru<f...@yandex-team.ru>, rift-...@ietf.org > >>> <rift-...@ietf.org>, rift-cha...@ietf.org <rift-cha...@ietf.org>, > >>> ext-zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn<zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn>, > >>> james.n.guich...@futurewei.com<james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>, > >>> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org<auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > >>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9692 <draft-ietf-rift-rift-24> for your > >>> review > >>> Thanks for the quick reply. > >>> I can address the spacing issues, I’ll send a new XML file when it’s > >>> ready. > >>> Thanks > >>> Jordan > >>> From: Alanna Paloma <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > >>> Date: Wednesday, January 8, 2025 at 2:45 PM > >>> To: Jordan Head <jh...@juniper.net> > >>> Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, Antoni > >>> Przygienda <p...@juniper.net>, as3...@gmail.com <as3...@gmail.com>, > >>> pascal.thub...@gmail.com <pascal.thub...@gmail.com>, > >>> brunorijs...@gmail.com <brunorijs...@gmail.com>, > >>> f...@yandex-team.ru<f...@yandex-team.ru>, rift-...@ietf.org > >>> <rift-...@ietf.org>, rift-cha...@ietf.org <rift-cha...@ietf.org>, > >>> ext-zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn<zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn>, > >>> james.n.guich...@futurewei.com<james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>, > >>> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org<auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > >>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9692 <draft-ietf-rift-rift-24> for your > >>> review > >>> [External Email. Be cautious of content] > >>> > >>> > >>> Hi Jordan, > >>> > >>>> ) To improve the SVG output in the HTML and PDF files, we suggest the > >>>> following. Please let us know which you would prefer: > >>>> (a) put the ASCII art into the HTML and PDF files, i.e., match Fig 14 > >>>> and 29 from rfc9692.txt or > >>>> (b) redraw the figures with another app to make new SVG (e.g., Inkscape). > >>>> > >>>> jhead>> We received positive feedback for both images during the review > >>>> process. Can you please provide some context as to what you mean by > >>>> “jumbled”? > >>> > >>> ) Both figures appear to have spacing issues between the vertical pipes > >>> and letters, making the labels difficult to read. > >>> > >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692.html*lie-fsm-figure__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EKiq0cAeW1D2n8maKa_Lo0BoJmC0hf-G7hZr-cq3WvZH1zRByPBHoGVmZ2AN8THBU5U1k4D603GBr3gxL_G0dZiD$ > >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692.html*normative-ztp-fsm__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EKiq0cAeW1D2n8maKa_Lo0BoJmC0hf-G7hZr-cq3WvZH1zRByPBHoGVmZ2AN8THBU5U1k4D603GBr3gxL7xiMMaN$ > >>> > >>> To fix the spacing, please let us know which of the aforementioned > >>> options you would prefer. > >>> > >>> [Note that my email address has changed from <apal...@amsl.com> to > >>> <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org>.] > >>> > >>> Thank you, > >>> RFC Editor/ap > >>> > >>>> On Jan 8, 2025, at 5:29 AM, Jordan Head > >>>> <jhead=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Thank you for the update, replies/comments inline as jhead>> > >>>> > >>>> Juniper Business Use Only > >>>> From: Alanna Paloma <apal...@amsl.com> > >>>> Date: Tuesday, January 7, 2025 at 5:01 PM > >>>> To: Jordan Head <jh...@juniper.net> > >>>> Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, Antoni > >>>> Przygienda <p...@juniper.net>, as3...@gmail.com <as3...@gmail.com>, > >>>> pascal.thub...@gmail.com <pascal.thub...@gmail.com>, > >>>> brunorijs...@gmail.com<brunorijs...@gmail.com>, > >>>> f...@yandex-team.ru<f...@yandex-team.ru>, rift-...@ietf.org > >>>> <rift-...@ietf.org>, rift-cha...@ietf.org <rift-cha...@ietf.org>, > >>>> ext-zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn<zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn>, > >>>> james.n.guich...@futurewei.com<james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>, > >>>> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org<auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > >>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9692 <draft-ietf-rift-rift-24> for your > >>>> review > >>>> [External Email. Be cautious of content] > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Hi Jordan, > >>>> > >>>> Thank you for your reply. We have updated the files accordingly. Please > >>>> note that we have some follow ups regarding the document’s SVG and > >>>> artwork. > >>>> > >>>>> 37) <!-- [rfced] Regarding the SVG questions below, please review the > >>>>> TXT, HTML, > >>>>> and PDF outputs, as we will need you to update the edited copy > >>>>> of the XML. > >>>>> > >>>>> a) The SVG figures contain duplicate ids, which generates invalid HTML. > >>>>> Please > >>>>> let us know if you want to correct the SVG or if you want us to run a > >>>>> utility > >>>>> that creates unique ids within the SVG. > >>>>> jhead>> Yes, please run the utility for us. > >>>>> jhead>> As an aside, can you point me to the utility for future use? > >>>> > >>>> ) The utility is ran through kramdown-rfc. See > >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc/wiki/SVG*svg-id-collisions__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DDAbBV9p0keMQbEGGvPYIbOvPzHtP4FpurOG5qPLd3TyLzWH2xW22JbXNvhXx37P2xou6x3HUUeIIg$ > >>>> . > >>>> > >>>> jhead>> Images still look good, thanks for addressing this for us! > >>>> > >>>>> b) Please see Figures 14 and 29 in the HTML and PDF outputs. The output > >>>>> for the > >>>>> SVG appear to be jumbled. To fix the SVG, please provide us with the > >>>>> files of > >>>>> the updated SVG. > >>>>> jhead>> Both of these are generated directly from code and cannot > >>>>> really be changed. > >>>> > >>>> ) To improve the SVG output in the HTML and PDF files, we suggest the > >>>> following. Please let us know which you would prefer: > >>>> (a) put the ASCII art into the HTML and PDF files, i.e., match Fig 14 > >>>> and 29 from rfc9692.txt or > >>>> (b) redraw the figures with another app to make new SVG (e.g., Inkscape). > >>>> > >>>> jhead>> We received positive feedback for both images during the review > >>>> process. Can you please provide some context as to what you mean by > >>>> “jumbled”? > >>>> > >>>>> 38) <!--[rfced] The artwork ("ascii-art") for Figures 3, 13, and 18 is > >>>>> too wide for the text output. Is it possible to wrap it within > >>>>> the 72-character line limit? > >>>>> > >>>>> If not: Because SVG diagrams exist for those 3 figures, you have the > >>>>> option > >>>>> to remove the ascii-art completely; in that case, the text file would > >>>>> contain > >>>>> a pointer to the HTML file. For example: > >>>>> > >>>>> (Artwork only available as SVG: see > >>>>> > >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9692.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DvhlYJjwDvmKheQ1Utsr8x7uFX3j5uE9GyxeAWQq1UDV5AT4xhBdBQMpyXP9EgfU9iLJmIaEg5POujbjFiAPo5s$ > >>>>> ) > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> jhead>> I was able to do this for Figures 13 and 18. However, it is not > >>>>> possible to address Figure 3. Let’s just add the pointer to the HTML > >>>>> version of the document where Figure 3 is. > >>>>> jhead>> I cannot do this as the link you sent me is broken. If you send > >>>>> me a fixed link / syntactical example of how to add the pointer, I will > >>>>> add it or you can add it if that’s easier. > >>>> > >>>> ) The link pointing the HTML file will not work until after this > >>>> document is published. We have added the text; see Figure 3 in > >>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DDAbBV9p0keMQbEGGvPYIbOvPzHtP4FpurOG5qPLd3TyLzWH2xW22JbXNvhXx37P2xou6x0O8GJtmQ$ > >>>> >. > >>>> > >>>> As Figure 3 directly follows Figure 2, we have moved text from the > >>>> preceding paragraph between the two figures to improve readability. > >>>> Please let us know if you have any objections. > >>>> > >>>> Curent: > >>>> > >>>> Figure 2: A Three-Level Spine-and-Leaf Topology > >>>> > >>>> The topology in Figure 2 is referred to in all further > >>>> considerations. This figure depicts a generic "single-plane fat > >>>> tree" and the concepts explained using three levels apply by > >>>> induction to further levels and higher degrees of connectivity. > >>>> > >>>> (Artwork only available as SVG: see > >>>> > >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9692.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DDAbBV9p0keMQbEGGvPYIbOvPzHtP4FpurOG5qPLd3TyLzWH2xW22JbXNvhXx37P2xou6x25B0RmZQ$ > >>>> ) > >>>> > >>>> Figure 3: Topology with Multiple Planes > >>>> > >>>> Further, this document will also deal with designs that provide only > >>>> sparser connectivity and "partitioned spines", as shown in Figure 3 > >>>> and explained further in Section 5.2. > >>>> > >>>> jhead>> This change looks good, thank you. > >>>> > >>>> ... > >>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): > >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DDAbBV9p0keMQbEGGvPYIbOvPzHtP4FpurOG5qPLd3TyLzWH2xW22JbXNvhXx37P2xou6x3SP1qaag$ > >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DDAbBV9p0keMQbEGGvPYIbOvPzHtP4FpurOG5qPLd3TyLzWH2xW22JbXNvhXx37P2xou6x0O8GJtmQ$ > >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DDAbBV9p0keMQbEGGvPYIbOvPzHtP4FpurOG5qPLd3TyLzWH2xW22JbXNvhXx37P2xou6x23lr81ZQ$ > >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DDAbBV9p0keMQbEGGvPYIbOvPzHtP4FpurOG5qPLd3TyLzWH2xW22JbXNvhXx37P2xou6x2kEXQdVg$ > >>>> > >>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here: > >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DDAbBV9p0keMQbEGGvPYIbOvPzHtP4FpurOG5qPLd3TyLzWH2xW22JbXNvhXx37P2xou6x10IDngzg$ > >>>> (comprehensive diff) > >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692-auth48diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DDAbBV9p0keMQbEGGvPYIbOvPzHtP4FpurOG5qPLd3TyLzWH2xW22JbXNvhXx37P2xou6x2HMdaFHg$ > >>>> (AUTH48 changes) > >>>> > >>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9692__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DDAbBV9p0keMQbEGGvPYIbOvPzHtP4FpurOG5qPLd3TyLzWH2xW22JbXNvhXx37P2xou6x2aInCVcg$ > >>>> > >>>> Thank you, > >>>> RFC Editor/ap > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Dec 26, 2024, at 1:18 PM, Jordan Head > >>>>> <jhead=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Dear Editors, > >>>>> Thank you so much for the time and effort you’ve put into this, it’s > >>>>> certainly been a journey. > >>>>> • I have read your comments and replied inline as jhead>> > >>>>> • I have also re-read the entire spec’s diff. There were critical areas > >>>>> in the new version that need to be reverted back to the original text > >>>>> as they would have normative implications if left as is. Beyond that, > >>>>> just a handful of minor editorial things. I will call out the important > >>>>> items below. > >>>>> • I have also added a handful of non-normative edits. I will call out > >>>>> the major items below #2 > >>>>> I have attached the updated (expanded) XML file (rfc9692.jhead.xml) to > >>>>> this e-mail, please let me know if you do not receive it. > >>>>> Adjustments to RFC Editor Proposed Changes > >>>>> • Some of the proposed changes in sections 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.3.2, > >>>>> 6.3.3.1.2.2, 6.3.3.1.3.2, 6.3.3.1.4, 6.3.8, 6.3.9, 6.8.4.1, and 7 alter > >>>>> critical semantics that are required to interpret the specification > >>>>> correctly. Specifically, items like and/or emphasis, if/else logic, and > >>>>> other similar items. Multiple implementations have been built upon the > >>>>> existing text, so I have reverted the necessary areas while leaving the > >>>>> editorial components that were changed. > >>>>> • Section 6.2.1 > >>>>> • In the proposed text there were several instances of changes to > >>>>> “multiple neighbors' timers”, “multiple neighbors timer” is neither > >>>>> possessive nor plural. Reverted them back to “multiple neighbors timer” > >>>>> • Section 6.3.7 > >>>>> • New text says “When a node exits in the network”, original text of > >>>>> “When a node exits the network” is correct. > >>>>> • Section 6.3.9 > >>>>> • New text changed similarity to similarly, similarity is correct in > >>>>> the mathematical context. > >>>>> • Section 6.4.3 > >>>>> • New text states “changes in the forwarding direction”, “changes in > >>>>> forwarding direction” is correct here. > >>>>> • Section 6.5.1 > >>>>> • New text states “all the lower-level nodes are flooded to the same > >>>>> disaggregated prefixes” the addition of “to the same” makes this > >>>>> incorrect. What this sentence is saying is “all the lower-level nodes > >>>>> are flooded (receive) the same disaggregated prefixes (from the > >>>>> higher-level nodes)…” I’d like to revert to the original text if that > >>>>> works. > >>>>> • Section 6.8.6 > >>>>> • New text changed “Up” to “up” and “Down” to “down”, both of those are > >>>>> normative states in the BFD FSM. I left the changes you incorporated > >>>>> except for the initial capitalization of those two items. > >>>>> • Appendix B.3 > >>>>> • Proposed changes to the unordered list following the text “To finish > >>>>> this example, the following list shows sets computed by ToF 22 using > >>>>> notation introduced in Section 6.5” are semantically incorrect. I have > >>>>> reverted them to the original to ensure alignment with the referenced > >>>>> section. > >>>>> Other Edits > >>>>> • Section 5.2.2 > >>>>> • Figure 6 and Figure 10 did not match between the ASCII and SVG > >>>>> variants, I have corrected this. > >>>>> • Previous text stated: “a PoD node has K number of ports” when in fact > >>>>> it should be “a PoD node has 2K number of ports”. > >>>>> • Section 5 (and some of its sub-sections) > >>>>> • While still correct, there were some instances of the word “spine” > >>>>> could be more specific (e.g., use ToF or ToP). Those instances have > >>>>> been adjusted. > >>>>> Again, thank you so much for the hard work! > >>>>> Jordan Head > >>>>> > >>>>> Juniper Business Use Only > >>>>> From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > >>>>> Date: Monday, December 9, 2024 at 5:57 PM > >>>>> To: Antoni Przygienda <p...@juniper.net>, Jordan Head > >>>>> <jh...@juniper.net>, as3...@gmail.com <as3...@gmail.com>, > >>>>> pascal.thub...@gmail.com<pascal.thub...@gmail.com>, > >>>>> brunorijs...@gmail.com<brunorijs...@gmail.com>, > >>>>> f...@yandex-team.ru<f...@yandex-team.ru> > >>>>> Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, > >>>>> rift-...@ietf.org <rift-...@ietf.org>, rift-cha...@ietf.org > >>>>> <rift-cha...@ietf.org>, ext-zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn > >>>>> <zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn>, > >>>>> james.n.guich...@futurewei.com<james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>,auth48archive@rfc-editor.org<auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > >>>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9692 <draft-ietf-rift-rift-24> for your > >>>>> review > >>>>> [External Email. Be cautious of content] > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Authors, > >>>>> > >>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as > >>>>> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > >>>>> > >>>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > >>>>> the title) for use on > >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/search__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DvhlYJjwDvmKheQ1Utsr8x7uFX3j5uE9GyxeAWQq1UDV5AT4xhBdBQMpyXP9EgfU9iLJmIaEg5POujbjgea3dNM$ > >>>>> . --> > >>>>> > >>>>> jhead>> I have added several key words in the body of the document. > >>>>> > >>>>> 2) <!--[rfced] We are having difficulty parsing the final part of this > >>>>> sentence. > >>>>> Should "compute" be "computational resources" or otherwise? > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> Such a solution would allow local > >>>>> IP fabric bandwidth to be consumed in a 'standard component' fashion, > >>>>> i.e. provision it much faster and operate it at much lower costs than > >>>>> today, much like compute or storage is consumed already. > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps: > >>>>> Such a solution would allow local > >>>>> IP fabric bandwidth to be consumed in a "standard component" fashion, > >>>>> i.e., provision it much faster and operate it at much lower costs than > >>>>> today, similar to how computational resources (e.g., CPU, storage) are > >>>>> consumed already. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> jhead>> I’d prefer we leave this one as is as “compute” is a noun in > >>>>> the standard technical vernacular. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 3) <!--[rfced] To improve readability, may we make this sentence into > >>>>> two? > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> Alas, such aggregation could > >>>>> drop traffic in cases of misconfiguration or while failures are being > >>>>> resolved or even cause persistent network partitioning and this has > >>>>> to be addressed by some adequate mechanism. > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps: > >>>>> Alas, such aggregation could > >>>>> drop traffic in cases of misconfiguration or while failures are being > >>>>> resolved. It could also cause persistent network partitioning, which > >>>>> has > >>>>> to be addressed by some adequate mechanism. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> jhead>> Yes, this works. I have adjusted this. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 4) <!--[rfced] May we update "multiple level" to "multi-level"? > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> Several modifications such as leaf- > >>>>> 2-leaf shortcuts and multiple level shortcuts are possible and > >>>>> described further in the document. > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps: > >>>>> Several modifications such as leaf- > >>>>> 2-leaf shortcuts and multi-level shortcuts are possible and > >>>>> described further in the document. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> jhead>> Yes, this works. I have adjusted this. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 5) <!--[rfced] Does "The usual natural numbers algebra" refer to > >>>>> a typical formula for cost? If so, should it be included, as > >>>>> "usual" seems vague. Is there a word that would be more > >>>>> clear than "algebra" here? > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> Cost: > >>>>> A natural number without a unit associated with two entities. The > >>>>> usual natural numbers algebra can be applied to costs. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> jhead>> Per Tony, I have changed that part of the definition to say: > >>>>> Cost: “A natural number without the unit associated with two entities. > >>>>> The cost is a monoid under addition.” … > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 6) <!--[rfced] Should any of the following text 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!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DvhlYJjwDvmKheQ1Utsr8x7uFX3j5uE9GyxeAWQq1UDV5AT4xhBdBQMpyXP9EgfU9iLJmIaEg5POujbjDxy_rO4$ > >>>>> ). > >>>>> > >>>>> Section 3.1 > >>>>> As a final > >>>>> footnote: Clos terminology often uses the concept of "stage", but > >>>>> due to the folded nature of the Fat Tree, it is not used from this > >>>>> point on to prevent misunderstandings. > >>>>> jhead>> Fixed. > >>>>> > >>>>> Section 10.3.6 > >>>>> Note: For interface addresses, the protocol can propagate the address > >>>>> part beyond the subnet mask and on reachability computation that has > >>>>> to be normalized. The non-significant bits can be used for > >>>>> operational purposes. > >>>>> jhead>> Fixed. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Section 10.3.11 > >>>>> Note: The only purpose of those values is to introduce an ordering, > >>>>> whereas an implementation can internally choose any other values as > >>>>> long the ordering is preserved. > >>>>> jhead>> Fixed. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Section 10.3.17 > >>>>> Note: This node's level is already included on the packet header. > >>>>> jhead>> Fixed. > >>>>> > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 7) <!--[rfced] We are having some difficulty parsing "that allows to > >>>>> protect" > >>>>> in the sentence below. May we update it as follows? > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> RIFT packets are flooded within an authenticated security envelope > >>>>> that allows to protect the integrity of information a node accepts > >>>>> if any of the mechanisms in Section 10.2 is used. > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps: > >>>>> RIFT packets are flooded within an authenticated security envelope > >>>>> that protects the integrity of information a node accepts > >>>>> if any of the mechanisms in Section 10.2 are used. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> jhead>> “allows to” is more akin to “optionally enables”. Text now > >>>>> reads: “RIFT packets are flooded within an authenticated security > >>>>> envelope that optionally enable protection of the integrity of > >>>>> information…” > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 8) <!--[rfced] May we make this sentence more concise? > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> For the moment > >>>>> describing the East-West direction is left out until later in the > >>>>> document. > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps: > >>>>> The East-West direction is described later in the document. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> jhead>> Yes, adjusted. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 9) <!--[rfced] To improve readability, may we reorder this sentence as > >>>>> follows? > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> In order to reach a 1:1 connectivity > >>>>> ratio between the ToF and the leaves, it results that there are K_TOP > >>>>> ToF nodes, because each port of a ToP node connects to a different > >>>>> ToF node, and K_LEAF ToP nodes for the same reason. > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps: > >>>>> In order to reach a 1:1 connectivity > >>>>> ratio between the ToF and the leaves, there are K_TOP > >>>>> ToF nodes and K_LEAF ToP nodes because each port of a ToP node > >>>>> connects > >>>>> to a different ToF node. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> jhead>> Previous edit suggested by Pascal stands. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 10) <!--[rfced] To improve the readability, may we update this sentence > >>>>> to > >>>>> reduce the number of commas? > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> The problem can also be > >>>>> observed by the ToF nodes in the other planes through the flooding > >>>>> of North TIEs from the affected leaf nodes, if there are only 3 > >>>>> levels and the ToP nodes are directly connected to the leaf nodes, > >>>>> and then again it can only be effective if it is propagated > >>>>> transitively to the leaf, and useless above that level. > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps: > >>>>> The problem can also be > >>>>> observed by the ToF nodes in the other planes through the flooding > >>>>> of North TIEs from the affected leaf nodes if there are only 3 > >>>>> levels and the ToP nodes are directly connected to the leaf nodes, > >>>>> and then again, it can only be effective if it is propagated > >>>>> transitively to the leaf and is useless above that level. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> jhead>> Previous edit suggested by Pascal stands. > >>>>> > >>>>> 11) <!--[rfced] We are having trouble parsing this sentence. Please > >>>>> review > >>>>> and let us know how it should be updated for clarity. > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> IPv4 LIE exchange happens by default over well-known administratively > >>>>> locally scoped and configured or otherwise well-known IPv4 multicast > >>>>> address [RFC2365]. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> jhead>> Subtle change to Pascal’s suggested edit, text now reads: “IPv4 > >>>>> LIE exchange happens by default over a well-known IPv4 multicast > >>>>> address [RFC2365] that may also be administratively configured (e.g., > >>>>> with a local scope).” > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 12) <!--[rfced] May we clarify "local" and "remote" to refer to address > >>>>> families? > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> The table is symmetric, i.e. local and remote can be > >>>>> exchanged to construct the remaining combinations. > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps: > >>>>> The table is symmetric, i.e. local and remote address families (AFs) > >>>>> can be exchanged to construct the remaining combinations. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> jhead>> Newly proposed text reads as: “The table is symmetric, i.e., > >>>>> the local and remote columns can be exchanged to construct the > >>>>> remaining combinations.” However, your original proposal is better, I > >>>>> think. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 13) <!--[rfced] We are having difficulty understanding how "given they > >>>>> have > >>>>> implications in terms of level and adjacency forming here" fits into > >>>>> this > >>>>> sentence. Please review and let us know how we may update this sentence > >>>>> for clarity. Also, does "they" refer to "definitions" or "leaf flags"? > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> Further definitions of leaf flags are found in Section 6.7 given they > >>>>> have implications in terms of level and adjacency forming here. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> jhead>> I have changed the text to: “Further leaf flag definitions are > >>>>> found in Section 6.7 as they have implications in terms of level and > >>>>> adjacency formation”. > >>>>> jhead>> “they” refers to the “leaf flags definitions”, it’s really a > >>>>> single term that specifies how the leaf flags function. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 14) <!--[rfced] We are having difficulty parsing "already to nodes at". > >>>>> Please review and let us know how we may clarify this sentence. > >>>>> Also, does "with level different" refer to the nodes? > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> i) the node is at _leaf_level_ value and has no _ThreeWay_ > >>>>> adjacencies already to nodes at Highest Adjacency _ThreeWay_ > >>>>> (HAT as defined later in Section 6.7.1) with level different > >>>>> than the adjacent node *or* > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps: > >>>>> a. the node is at the _leaf_level_ value and does not already > >>>>> have any _ThreeWay_ adjacencies to nodes that are at Highest > >>>>> Adjacency _ThreeWay_ (HAT), as defined in Section 6.7.1, > >>>>> and that have a level different than the adjacent node; > >>>>> --> > >>>>> jhead>> A couple readability aspects of the proposed text are fine, but > >>>>> the sentence phrasing and structure carries a degree of semantic > >>>>> importance (this is one of the examples I mentioned earlier in the > >>>>> e-mail). I have changed the text to: “the node is at the _leaf_level_ > >>>>> value and does not already have any _ThreeWay_ adjacencies to nodes > >>>>> that are at the Highest Adjacency _ThreeWay_ (HAT), as defined in > >>>>> Section 6.7.1, with a level that is different than the adjacent node > >>>>> *or*” > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 15) <!--[rfced] Is the repetition of "return" intentional here? > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> return return TIEHeader with larger seq_nr is larger > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps: > >>>>> return TIEHeader with larger seq_nr is larger > >>>>> > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> jhead>> As Pascal said, single return is correct. > >>>>> > >>>>> 16) <!--[rfced] To improve the readability of this sentence, may we > >>>>> clarify it > >>>>> as follows? > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> This allows for future > >>>>> extensions of the protocol within the same major schema with types > >>>>> opaque to some nodes with some restrictions defined in Section 7. > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps: > >>>>> This allows for future > >>>>> extensions of the protocol that are within the same major schema > >>>>> and that have types that are opaque to some nodes; some restrictions > >>>>> are defined in Section 7. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> jhead>> Yes, I’ve added your change. > >>>>> > >>>>> 17) <!--[rfced] What does "TIRDE" refer to in "TIRDEs_PER_PKT"? > >>>>> Is this sufficiently clear to the reader from the text? We note > >>>>> "TIDE" and "TIRE" are defined in Section 3.1. > >>>>> > >>>>> Current: > >>>>> The constant _TIRDEs_PER_PKT_ SHOULD be computed per interface and > >>>>> used by the implementation to limit the amount of TIE headers per > >>>>> TIDE so the sent TIDE PDU does not exceed the interface of MTU. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> jhead>> This should be TIRES_PER_TIDE_PKT instead, I have updated all > >>>>> instances. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 18) <!--[rfced] Is "spaced" the correct term to use here? If so, it is > >>>>> unclear how > >>>>> TIDE PDUs should be spaced. Please review and let us know if/how this > >>>>> sentence > >>>>> may be updated for clarity. > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> TIDE PDUs SHOULD be spaced on sending to prevent packet drops. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> jhead>> Text now reads: TIDE PDUs SHOULD be transmitted at a rate that > >>>>> does not lead to packet drops. > >>>>> > >>>>> 19) <!--[rfced] Should the terms defined in Sections 6.3.3.1.2.1, > >>>>> 6.3.3.1.2.2, > >>>>> and 6.3.3.1.3.2 be prefaced with introductory text? The current text > >>>>> introduces the steps of a process, but then is followed directly by > >>>>> definitions. May we rearrange the order of the text so that the > >>>>> definitions > >>>>> come before the current lead-in text? > >>>>> > >>>>> For example: > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> On reception of TIDEs the following processing is performed: > >>>>> > >>>>> TXKEYS: Collection of TIE Headers to be sent after processing of > >>>>> the packet > >>>>> > >>>>> REQKEYS: Collection of TIEIDs to be requested after processing of > >>>>> the packet > >>>>> > >>>>> CLEARKEYS: Collection of TIEIDs to be removed from flood state > >>>>> queues > >>>>> > >>>>> LASTPROCESSED: Last processed TIEID in TIDE > >>>>> > >>>>> DBTIE: TIE in the Link State Database (LSDB) if found > >>>>> > >>>>> a. LASTPROCESSED = TIDE.start_range > >>>>> > >>>>> b. for every HEADER in TIDE do > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps: > >>>>> TXKEYS: Collection of TIE Headers to be sent after processing of > >>>>> the packet > >>>>> > >>>>> REQKEYS: Collection of TIEIDs to be requested after processing of > >>>>> the packet > >>>>> > >>>>> CLEARKEYS: Collection of TIEIDs to be removed from flood state > >>>>> queues > >>>>> > >>>>> LASTPROCESSED: Last processed TIEID in TIDE > >>>>> > >>>>> DBTIE: TIE in the Link State Database (LSDB) if found > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On reception of TIDEs, the following processing is performed: > >>>>> > >>>>> a. LASTPROCESSED = TIDE.start_range > >>>>> > >>>>> b. for every HEADER in TIDE do > >>>>> --> > >>>>> jhead>> Yes, I’ve adjusted this. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 20) <!--[rfced] May "on first and only first request" be updated to > >>>>> "on only the first request" for clarity? > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> ...when receiving TIREs or TIDEs > >>>>> resulting in requests for a TIE of which the newest received copy > >>>>> came on an adjacency where the node was not flood repeater it > >>>>> SHOULD ignore such requests on first and only first request. > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps: > >>>>> ...when receiving TIREs or TIDEs > >>>>> resulting in requests for a TIE of which the newest received copy > >>>>> came on an adjacency where the node was not a flood repeater, it > >>>>> SHOULD ignore such requests on only the first request. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> jhead>> Yes. > >>>>> > >>>>> 21) <!--[rfced] Should "TIE north" be "North TIE" to match other > >>>>> instances > >>>>> throughout the document? > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> More difficult is a condition where a node (e.g. a leaf) floods a TIE > >>>>> north towards its grandparent, then its parent reboots, partitioning > >>>>> the grandparent from leaf directly and then the leaf itself reboots. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> jhead>> In this case, no, let’s leave it as is. > >>>>> > >>>>> 22) <!--[rfced] We are having some trouble parsing "term set". May we > >>>>> rephrase this sentence as follows for clarity? > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> We term set of those > >>>>> prefixes |R, and for each prefix, r, in |R, its set of next-hops > >>>>> is defined to be |H(r). > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps: > >>>>> The set of those prefixes is referred to as |R; for each prefix > >>>>> r in |R, its set of next hops is |H(r). > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> jhead>> We adjusted the text to now say “The set of those prefixes is > >>>>> referred to as |R; for each prefix r in |R, its set of next hops is > >>>>> referred to as |H(r).” > >>>>> > >>>>> 23) <!--[rfced] We are having difficulty understanding "subsequently > >>>>> adjacencies > >>>>> to nodes that advertised..." How may we update for clarity? > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> The nexthop > >>>>> adjacencies for a negative prefix are inherited from the longest > >>>>> positive prefix that aggregates it, and subsequently adjacencies to > >>>>> nodes that advertised negative for this prefix are removed. > >>>>> > >>>>> Option A: > >>>>> The next-hop > >>>>> adjacencies for a negative prefix are inherited from the longest > >>>>> positive prefix that aggregates it; subsequently, adjacencies to > >>>>> nodes that negatively advertised for this prefix are removed. > >>>>> > >>>>> Option B: [if the intended meaning is 'as a result' rather than > >>>>> 'afterward'] > >>>>> The next-hop > >>>>> adjacencies for a negative prefix are inherited from the longest > >>>>> positive prefix that aggregates it; as a result, adjacencies to > >>>>> nodes that negatively advertised for this prefix are removed. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> jhead>> We have changed the text to say “The next-hop adjacencies for a > >>>>> negative prefix are inherited from the longest positive prefix that > >>>>> aggregates it; subsequently, adjacencies to nodes that advertised > >>>>> negative disaggregation for this prefix are removed.” > >>>>> > >>>>> 24) <!--[rfced] To clarify the content of Appendix A, may we update this > >>>>> sentence as follows? > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> The sequence counter in [RFC8505] is encoded as one octet and wraps > >>>>> around using Appendix A. > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps: > >>>>> The sequence counter in [RFC8505] is encoded as one octet and wraps > >>>>> around using the arithmetic defined in Appendix A. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> jhead>> Yes, this is good. I’ve adjusted the text. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 25) <!--[rfced] May we update "Init" to "Initial state"? > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> In case an established BFD session goes Down after it was Up, RIFT > >>>>> adjacency SHOULD be re-initialized and subsequently started from > >>>>> Init after it receives a consecutive BFD Up. > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps: > >>>>> In case an established BFD session goes Down after it was Up, RIFT > >>>>> adjacency SHOULD be re-initialized and subsequently started from > >>>>> the Initial state after it receives a consecutive BFD Up. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> jhead>> No, Init is a normative state in BFD. > >>>>> > >>>>> 26) <!--[rfced] To avoid the repetition of "to compute", should this > >>>>> sentence > >>>>> be updated as follows? > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> On a node, L, use Node TIEs to compute from each non-overloaded > >>>>> northbound neighbor N to compute 3 values: > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps: > >>>>> On a node, L, use Node TIEs to compute 3 values from each > >>>>> non-overloaded > >>>>> northbound neighbor, N: > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> jhead>> Yes, this is good, I’ve adjusted the text. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 27) <!--[rfced] As this is a long sentence, may we break it up to > >>>>> improve > >>>>> its readability? > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> Any value in > >>>>> the packet following a security fingerprint MUST be used by a > >>>>> receiver only after the fingerprint generated based on acceptable, > >>>>> advertised key ID has been validated against the data covered by it > >>>>> bare exceptions arising from operational exigencies where, based on > >>>>> local configuration, a node MAY allow for the envelope's integrity > >>>>> checks to be skipped and for behavior specified in Section 6.9.6. > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps: > >>>>> Any value in > >>>>> the packet following a security fingerprint MUST be used by a > >>>>> receiver only after the fingerprint generated based on an acceptable, > >>>>> advertised key ID has been validated against the data covered by the > >>>>> bare exceptions arising from operational exigencies. Based on > >>>>> local configuration, a node MAY allow for the envelope's integrity > >>>>> checks to be skipped and for the procedure specified in Section 6.9.6 > >>>>> to be implemented. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> jhead>> Your proposed changes are better, I’ve updated the document. > >>>>> > >>>>> 28) <!--[rfced] We note that the following references are only cited in > >>>>> the > >>>>> sourcecode in Section 7.2. In order to have a 1:1 match-up between the > >>>>> references section and the text, please review the text and let us know > >>>>> where a citation for each of the following may be included. > >>>>> > >>>>> [RFC5837] > >>>>> [RFC5880] > >>>>> [RFC6550] > >>>>> > >>>>> Alternatively, a sentence can be included before the sourcecode stating > >>>>> that it refers to the following (and then list the citations). > >>>>> jhead>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps: > >>>>> This schema references [RFC5837], [RFC5880], and [RFC6550]. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> jhead>> I’ve added your suggestion to the top of the common.thrift > >>>>> section. > >>>>> > >>>>> 29) <!--[rfced] May we make this sentence more concise? > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> In a scenario > >>>>> where such attacks are likely _maximum_valid_nonce_delta_ can be > >>>>> implemented as configurable, small value and > >>>>> _nonce_regeneration_interval_ configured to very small value as well. > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps: > >>>>> In a scenario > >>>>> where such attacks are likely, _maximum_valid_nonce_delta_ and > >>>>> _nonce_regeneration_interval_ can be implemented as configurable, > >>>>> small values. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> jhead>> Text now reads: “In a scenario where such attacks are likely, > >>>>> _maximum_valid_nonce_delta_ and _nonce_regeneration_interval_ can be > >>>>> implemented as configurable; and set to small values.” > >>>>> > >>>>> 30) <!--[rfced] We are having some difficulty understanding how "leaf > >>>>> level > >>>>> value and always setting overload flag" fits into the rest of the > >>>>> sentence. > >>>>> Please let us know how this sentence may be clarified. > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> To isolate possible attack vectors on the leaf to the largest > >>>>> possible extent a dedicated leaf-only implementation could run > >>>>> without any configuration by hard-coding a well-known adjacency key > >>>>> (which can be always rolled-over by the means of, e.g., well-known > >>>>> key-value distributed from top of the fabric), leaf level value and > >>>>> always setting overload flag. > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps: > >>>>> To isolate possible attack vectors on the leaf to the largest > >>>>> possible extent, a dedicated leaf-only implementation could run > >>>>> without any configuration by > >>>>> * hard-coding a well-known adjacency key (which can be always > >>>>> rolled over by means of, e.g., a well-known key-value distributed > >>>>> from top of the fabric), > >>>>> * hard-coding a _leaf_level_ value, and > >>>>> * always setting the overload flag. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> jhead>> Yes, this is great. I’ve added an unordered list per your > >>>>> suggestion. We don’t need to say “leaf_level” here, we can refer to it > >>>>> generically as it was previously. > >>>>> > >>>>> 31) <!--[rfced] Should 'outer key' be plural 'outer keys' in this > >>>>> sentence? > >>>>> (If so, we will ask IANA to update the registry accordingly.) > >>>>> > >>>>> Original (for HMAC-SHA256): > >>>>> Simplest way to ensure integrity of transmissions across adjacencies > >>>>> when used as outer key and integrity of TIEs when used as inner keys. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> jhead>> Yes. > >>>>> > >>>>> 32) <!--[rfced] FYI, we have moved the text preceding Tables 9, 10, 12, > >>>>> 13, > >>>>> 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, > >>>>> 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, and 43 to be the table titles. Please > >>>>> let > >>>>> us know if you prefer otherwise. (In some cases, perhaps removing the > >>>>> table title is best because the section title already provides the > >>>>> corresponding registry name.) > >>>>> > >>>>> Additionally, please let us know if Tables 7, 8, 11, 16, 23, and 26 > >>>>> should > >>>>> have titles. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> jhead>> I’m good with existing changes. > >>>>> jhead>> For table 7, I’ve titled it “RIFT Security Algorithms” > >>>>> jhead>> For the remaining items the only thought was to use the section > >>>>> title, but as you said it’s probably best to leave it off. > >>>>> > >>>>> 33) <!--[rfced] Regarding Sections 10.3.1 - 10.3.36: > >>>>> > >>>>> a) Would you like the order of the columns in the tables in the IANA > >>>>> Considerations to be updated to match the IANA registry? In other > >>>>> words, > >>>>> would you like to switch the Name and Value columns so that Value is > >>>>> the first > >>>>> column on the left? See Section 10.3.2 for an example of the update to > >>>>> match > >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/rift__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DvhlYJjwDvmKheQ1Utsr8x7uFX3j5uE9GyxeAWQq1UDV5AT4xhBdBQMpyXP9EgfU9iLJmIaEg5POujbjcxct13s$ > >>>>> . (If the answer is no, then we will > >>>>> revert Section 10.3.2.) > >>>>> > >>>>> b) FYI, the section titles have been updated to match the names > >>>>> of the IANA registries. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> jhead>> Your proposed changes are fine with me. > >>>>> > >>>>> 34) <!--[rfced] Please clarify; how does and "on reachability > >>>>> computation > >>>>> that has to be normalized" connect with the rest of the sentence? > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> @note: for interface addresses the protocol can propagate the address > >>>>> part beyond the subnet mask and on reachability computation that has > >>>>> to be normalized. The non-significant bits can be used for > >>>>> operational purposes. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> jhead>> Text now reads: “Note: For interface addresses the protocol can > >>>>> propagate the address part beyond the subnet mask and on reachability > >>>>> computation the non-significant bits have to be normalized. Those bits > >>>>> can be used for operational purposes.” > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 35) <!--[rfced] References > >>>>> > >>>>> a) The original URL for [thrift] goes to a GitHub repository. The web > >>>>> portion > >>>>> of the style guide > >>>>> (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/*ref_repo__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DvhlYJjwDvmKheQ1Utsr8x7uFX3j5uE9GyxeAWQq1UDV5AT4xhBdBQMpyXP9EgfU9iLJmIaEg5POujbj_AUx2nQ$ > >>>>> ) > >>>>> recommends using GitHub repositories for informative references only. > >>>>> We found > >>>>> the site for the Apache Thrift documentation at the following URL: > >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://thrift.apache.org/docs/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DvhlYJjwDvmKheQ1Utsr8x7uFX3j5uE9GyxeAWQq1UDV5AT4xhBdBQMpyXP9EgfU9iLJmIaEg5POujbj71IyMCc$ > >>>>> . > >>>>> We have updated the reference as follows. Please let us know if you > >>>>> prefer otherwise. > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> [thrift] Apache Software Foundation, "Thrift Language > >>>>> Implementation and Documentation", > >>>>> > >>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/apache/thrift/tree/0.15.0/doc__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DvhlYJjwDvmKheQ1Utsr8x7uFX3j5uE9GyxeAWQq1UDV5AT4xhBdBQMpyXP9EgfU9iLJmIaEg5POujbjEY-My8U$ > >>>>> >. > >>>>> > >>>>> Current: > >>>>> [thrift] Apache Software Foundation, "Apache Thrift Documentation", > >>>>> > >>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://thrift.apache.org/docs/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DvhlYJjwDvmKheQ1Utsr8x7uFX3j5uE9GyxeAWQq1UDV5AT4xhBdBQMpyXP9EgfU9iLJmIaEg5POujbj71IyMCc$ > >>>>> >. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> b) FYI, the [SHA-2] reference has been updated from NIST FIPS PUB 180-3 > >>>>> to NIST FIPS 180-4, as per the note from IANA and because it was > >>>>> superseded. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> c) We have updated the URL for [EUI64] from > >>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://standards.ieee.org/develop/regauth/tut/eui.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DvhlYJjwDvmKheQ1Utsr8x7uFX3j5uE9GyxeAWQq1UDV5AT4xhBdBQMpyXP9EgfU9iLJmIaEg5POujbjRbbOcqo$ > >>>>> > to > >>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://standards-support.ieee.org/hc/en-us/articles/4888705676564-Guidelines-for-Use-of-Extended-Unique-Identifier-EUI-Organizationally-Unique-Identifier-OUI-and-Company-ID-CID__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DvhlYJjwDvmKheQ1Utsr8x7uFX3j5uE9GyxeAWQq1UDV5AT4xhBdBQMpyXP9EgfU9iLJmIaEg5POujbj8xwO_Xs$ > >>>>> >. The original URL led to a page about IEEE Registration > >>>>> Authority programs. Please review and let us know if you have any > >>>>> objections. > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> [EUI64] IEEE, "Guidelines for Use of Extended Unique Identifier > >>>>> (EUI), Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI), and > >>>>> Company ID (CID)", IEEE EUI, > >>>>> > >>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://standards.ieee.org/develop/regauth/tut/eui.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DvhlYJjwDvmKheQ1Utsr8x7uFX3j5uE9GyxeAWQq1UDV5AT4xhBdBQMpyXP9EgfU9iLJmIaEg5POujbjRbbOcqo$ > >>>>> >. > >>>>> > >>>>> Current: > >>>>> [EUI64] IEEE, "Guidelines for Use of Extended Unique Identifier > >>>>> (EUI), Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI), and > >>>>> Company ID (CID)", > >>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://standards-support.ieee.org/hc/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DvhlYJjwDvmKheQ1Utsr8x7uFX3j5uE9GyxeAWQq1UDV5AT4xhBdBQMpyXP9EgfU9iLJmIaEg5POujbjxasZpz0$ > >>>>> en-us/articles/4888705676564-Guidelines-for-Use-of- > >>>>> Extended-Unique-Identifier-EUI-Organizationally-Unique- > >>>>> Identifier-OUI-and-Company-ID-CID>. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> d) FYI, RFC 5226 has been obsoleted by RFC 8126. We have replaced > >>>>> usage in this document accordingly. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> jhead>> All reference changes look good. > >>>>> > >>>>> 36) <!--[rfced] Should Alankar Sharma's name also be listed in the > >>>>> Contributors > >>>>> section, since the other authors are also listed there? > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> jhead>> Yes, done. > >>>>> 37) <!-- [rfced] Regarding the SVG questions below, please review the > >>>>> TXT, HTML, > >>>>> and PDF outputs, as we will need you to update the edited copy > >>>>> of the XML. > >>>>> > >>>>> a) The SVG figures contain duplicate ids, which generates invalid HTML. > >>>>> Please > >>>>> let us know if you want to correct the SVG or if you want us to run a > >>>>> utility > >>>>> that creates unique ids within the SVG. > >>>>> jhead>> Yes, please run the utility for us. > >>>>> jhead>> As an aside, can you point me to the utility for future use? > >>>>> > >>>>> b) Please see Figures 14 and 29 in the HTML and PDF outputs. The output > >>>>> for the > >>>>> SVG appear to be jumbled. To fix the SVG, please provide us with the > >>>>> files of > >>>>> the updated SVG. > >>>>> jhead>> Both of these are generated directly from code and cannot > >>>>> really be changed. > >>>>> > >>>>> c) We note that the text within many of the SVG figures is not able to > >>>>> be > >>>>> selected. (For example: text in Figures 1, 2, 32.) Is it possible to > >>>>> modify > >>>>> the SVG using your preferred SVG editing software to improve the > >>>>> rendering > >>>>> of the string in the SVG? > >>>>> jhead>> Not possible at this point. > >>>>> > >>>>> Here is an example of SVG where the strings within the SVG are > >>>>> selectable and searchable: > >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9576.html*figure-1__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DvhlYJjwDvmKheQ1Utsr8x7uFX3j5uE9GyxeAWQq1UDV5AT4xhBdBQMpyXP9EgfU9iLJmIaEg5POujbjtopemTQ$ > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 38) <!--[rfced] The artwork ("ascii-art") for Figures 3, 13, and 18 is > >>>>> too wide for the text output. Is it possible to wrap it within > >>>>> the 72-character line limit? > >>>>> > >>>>> If not: Because SVG diagrams exist for those 3 figures, you have the > >>>>> option > >>>>> to remove the ascii-art completely; in that case, the text file would > >>>>> contain > >>>>> a pointer to the HTML file. For example: > >>>>> > >>>>> (Artwork only available as SVG: see > >>>>> > >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9692.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DvhlYJjwDvmKheQ1Utsr8x7uFX3j5uE9GyxeAWQq1UDV5AT4xhBdBQMpyXP9EgfU9iLJmIaEg5POujbjFiAPo5s$ > >>>>> ) > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> jhead>> I was able to do this for Figures 13 and 18. However, it is not > >>>>> possible to address Figure 3. Let’s just add the pointer to the HTML > >>>>> version of the document where Figure 3 is. > >>>>> jhead>> I cannot do this as the link you sent me is broken. If you send > >>>>> me a fixed link / syntactical example of how to add the pointer, I will > >>>>> add it or you can add it if that’s easier. > >>>>> > >>>>> 39) <!-- [rfced] The sourcecode element in Sections 7.2 (common.thrift) > >>>>> contains lines that are too long for the line-length limitation of > >>>>> the text output. Please let us know how we may wrap the text to fit > >>>>> within 69 characters per line (or please update the XML source > >>>>> file). > >>>>> > >>>>> FYI, we added line breaks and adjusted whitespace in sourcecode elements > >>>>> in the following sections to fit the limit. Please review. > >>>>> Section 6.3.3 (TIEHeader Comparison Function) > >>>>> Section 7.3 (encoding.thrift) > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> jhead>> I’ve fixed all instances in 7.2 > >>>>> > >>>>> 40) <!--[rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode > >>>>> element > >>>>> 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__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DvhlYJjwDvmKheQ1Utsr8x7uFX3j5uE9GyxeAWQq1UDV5AT4xhBdBQMpyXP9EgfU9iLJmIaEg5POujbjXQmev9E$ > >>>>> ) > >>>>> does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us know. > >>>>> Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> jhead>> I’ve unset the type attribute for all instances in the document. > >>>>> > >>>>> 41) <!-- [rfced] Regarding <em> and <strong> elements: > >>>>> > >>>>> In the HTML and PDF outputs, <em> yields italics. > >>>>> In the text output, <em> yields an underscore before and after. > >>>>> > >>>>> In the HTML and PDF outputs, <strong> yields bold. > >>>>> In the text output, <strong> yields an asterisk before and after. > >>>>> > >>>>> Please review the occurrences and let us know if any updates are needed > >>>>> for > >>>>> consistency. > >>>>> jhead>> I’ve already made updates here where necessary. > >>>>> > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 42) <!-- [rfced] Some author comments are present in the XML. Please > >>>>> confirm > >>>>> that no updates related to these comments are outstanding. Note that the > >>>>> comments will be deleted prior to publication. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> jhead>> Nothing outstanding from our end. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 43) <!-- [rfced] Terminology > >>>>> > >>>>> a) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used > >>>>> inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how > >>>>> they > >>>>> may be made consistent. > >>>>> > >>>>> Fallen Leaf vs. fallen leaf > >>>>> holddown vs. hold down > >>>>> Radix vs. radix > >>>>> single-plane vs. single plane > >>>>> North Node TIE vs. node North TIE > >>>>> South Node TIE vs. Node South TIE > >>>>> north prefix TIE vs. Prefix North TIE > >>>>> South Prefix TIE vs. south prefix TIE vs. Prefix South TIE vs. > >>>>> prefix South TIE > >>>>> superspine vs. super-spine > >>>>> jhead>> Used “fallen leaf” except in instances where the words are part > >>>>> of a title or term. > >>>>> jhead>> All instances of “hold down” were changed to “holddown” > >>>>> jhead>> All instances of “single plane” are now “single-plane” > >>>>> jhead>> All instances of specific TIE types (e.g., node North TIE, > >>>>> etc.) are now converged on Direction + Type (e.g., North Node TIE, > >>>>> South Prefix TIE, etc.) > >>>>> jhead>> All instances of “super-spine” are now “superspine”. > >>>>> > >>>>> b) We note that there is mixed usage of the terms listed below > >>>>> throughout > >>>>> the document. May we update to the form on the right? > >>>>> > >>>>> fat tree vs. Fat Tree > >>>>> Key ID vs. key ID > >>>>> leaf-2-leaf vs. leaf-to-leaf > >>>>> > >>>>> jhead>> “Fat Tree” is now “fat tree” except in instances of titles, > >>>>> registries, etc. > >>>>> jhead>> “key ID” is fine, no changes are required. > >>>>> jhead>> “leaf-to-leaf” is the correct long form of the term. > >>>>> > >>>>> c) May we update "non-significant bits" to "insignificant bits"? > >>>>> > >>>>> Original (2 instances): > >>>>> The non-significant bits can be used for operational purposes. > >>>>> > >>>>> jhead>> No, non-significant is correct. > >>>>> > >>>>> d) May this misspelling be corrected? Apparently "multiplier" was > >>>>> intended. > >>>>> > >>>>> multiple_neighbors_lie_holdtime_multipler (5 instances) > >>>>> -> multiple_neighbors_lie_holdtime_multiplier > >>>>> > >>>>> multipler for default ... -> multiplier for default ... > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> jhead>> Yes, I’ve fixed all instances to now say “multiplier”. > >>>>> > >>>>> 44) <!-- [rfced] Acronyms > >>>>> > >>>>> a) 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. > >>>>> > >>>>> Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) > >>>>> Internet of Things (IoT) > >>>>> Layer 3 (L3) > >>>>> Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) > >>>>> MAC Address Block Large (MA-L) > >>>>> Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN) > >>>>> > >>>>> b) Should the following acronym be expanded? > >>>>> > >>>>> RND > >>>>> jhead>> No. > >>>>> > >>>>> c) Which form should the following acronyms be expanded as? > >>>>> > >>>>> AF = Assured Forwarding vs. Address Family vs. Appointed Forwarder > >>>>> IDL = interface definition language vs. Interface Description Language > >>>>> L2L = Leaf-to-Leaf vs. leaf-2-leaf > >>>>> > >>>>> jhead>> Address Family for AF is correct. I changed the instances to > >>>>> their expanded form. > >>>>> jhead>> Interface Description Language for IDL is correct, I expanded > >>>>> the first instance of it. Do we need to expand for the rest as well? > >>>>> jhead>> Leaf-to-Leaf for L2L, I didn’t change anything because it’s one > >>>>> of the defined terms in the glossary. > >>>>> > >>>>> d) After their first expansion, may we update all instances of the > >>>>> following > >>>>> expanded forms to be their corresponding acronyms? > >>>>> > >>>>> East-West (E-W) > >>>>> flood repeater (FR) > >>>>> key identifiers (key ID) > >>>>> leaf-2-leaf (L2L) > >>>>> link state database (LSDB) > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> jhead>> Let’s leave “East-West” and “Flood Repeater” as is, changing > >>>>> those might be confusing. The remaining terms can be flipped to their > >>>>> acronyms. > >>>>> jhead>> I have compressed all instances of every other term to their > >>>>> acronyms (unless it is the first instance, which is expanded) > >>>>> > >>>>> 45) <!-- [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!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DvhlYJjwDvmKheQ1Utsr8x7uFX3j5uE9GyxeAWQq1UDV5AT4xhBdBQMpyXP9EgfU9iLJmIaEg5POujbjQHMFZIQ$ > >>>>> > > >>>>> 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 the following should be updated: > >>>>> man in the middle > >>>>> > >>>>> jhead>> The inclusivity aspect was reviewed during the IESG phase > >>>>> (thanks, Alvaro!). This is one of the exceptions where it refers to a > >>>>> specific type of security attack. There is no alternative. > >>>>> > >>>>> In addition, please consider whether "traditional" should be updated > >>>>> for clarity. > >>>>> jhead>> Changed two instances of “traditional” to “typical”. > >>>>> > >>>>> While the NIST website > >>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions*table1__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DvhlYJjwDvmKheQ1Utsr8x7uFX3j5uE9GyxeAWQq1UDV5AT4xhBdBQMpyXP9EgfU9iLJmIaEg5POujbjbB8xY_w$ > >>>>> > > >>>>> indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you. > >>>>> > >>>>> RFC Editor/ap/ar > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Dec 9, 2024, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> *****IMPORTANT***** > >>>>> > >>>>> Updated 2024/12/09 > >>>>> > >>>>> RFC Author(s): > >>>>> -------------- > >>>>> > >>>>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48 > >>>>> > >>>>> Your document has now entered 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 > >>>>> available as listed in the FAQ > >>>>> (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DvhlYJjwDvmKheQ1Utsr8x7uFX3j5uE9GyxeAWQq1UDV5AT4xhBdBQMpyXP9EgfU9iLJmIaEg5POujbjdSv7gVQ$ > >>>>> ). > >>>>> > >>>>> 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__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DvhlYJjwDvmKheQ1Utsr8x7uFX3j5uE9GyxeAWQq1UDV5AT4xhBdBQMpyXP9EgfU9iLJmIaEg5POujbjovk2NmU$ > >>>>> ). > >>>>> > >>>>> * 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__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DvhlYJjwDvmKheQ1Utsr8x7uFX3j5uE9GyxeAWQq1UDV5AT4xhBdBQMpyXP9EgfU9iLJmIaEg5POujbjSADZWe8$ > >>>>> >. > >>>>> > >>>>> * 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 > >>>>> > >>>>> * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (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). > >>>>> > >>>>> * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list > >>>>> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion > >>>>> list: > >>>>> > >>>>> * More info: > >>>>> > >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DvhlYJjwDvmKheQ1Utsr8x7uFX3j5uE9GyxeAWQq1UDV5AT4xhBdBQMpyXP9EgfU9iLJmIaEg5POujbjkiCF7Wo$ > >>>>> > >>>>> * The archive itself: > >>>>> > >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DvhlYJjwDvmKheQ1Utsr8x7uFX3j5uE9GyxeAWQq1UDV5AT4xhBdBQMpyXP9EgfU9iLJmIaEg5POujbjY2FgrPw$ > >>>>> > >>>>> * 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, > >>>>> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org 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/rfc9692.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DvhlYJjwDvmKheQ1Utsr8x7uFX3j5uE9GyxeAWQq1UDV5AT4xhBdBQMpyXP9EgfU9iLJmIaEg5POujbj2oNpkI8$ > >>>>> > >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DvhlYJjwDvmKheQ1Utsr8x7uFX3j5uE9GyxeAWQq1UDV5AT4xhBdBQMpyXP9EgfU9iLJmIaEg5POujbj5LFHVHY$ > >>>>> > >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DvhlYJjwDvmKheQ1Utsr8x7uFX3j5uE9GyxeAWQq1UDV5AT4xhBdBQMpyXP9EgfU9iLJmIaEg5POujbjCUyDetU$ > >>>>> > >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DvhlYJjwDvmKheQ1Utsr8x7uFX3j5uE9GyxeAWQq1UDV5AT4xhBdBQMpyXP9EgfU9iLJmIaEg5POujbj-zrHYQk$ > >>>>> > >>>>> Diff file of the text: > >>>>> > >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DvhlYJjwDvmKheQ1Utsr8x7uFX3j5uE9GyxeAWQq1UDV5AT4xhBdBQMpyXP9EgfU9iLJmIaEg5POujbjYjQxU8o$ > >>>>> > >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692-rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DvhlYJjwDvmKheQ1Utsr8x7uFX3j5uE9GyxeAWQq1UDV5AT4xhBdBQMpyXP9EgfU9iLJmIaEg5POujbjc0_npQI$ > >>>>> (side by side) > >>>>> > >>>>> Diff of the XML: > >>>>> > >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692-xmldiff1.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DvhlYJjwDvmKheQ1Utsr8x7uFX3j5uE9GyxeAWQq1UDV5AT4xhBdBQMpyXP9EgfU9iLJmIaEg5POujbjVcGPHL0$ > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Tracking progress > >>>>> ----------------- > >>>>> > >>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > >>>>> > >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9692__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DvhlYJjwDvmKheQ1Utsr8x7uFX3j5uE9GyxeAWQq1UDV5AT4xhBdBQMpyXP9EgfU9iLJmIaEg5POujbjbhotpcE$ > >>>>> > >>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you for your cooperation, > >>>>> > >>>>> RFC Editor > >>>>> > >>>>> -------------------------------------- > >>>>> RFC9692 (draft-ietf-rift-rift-24) > >>>>> > >>>>> Title : RIFT: Routing in Fat Trees > >>>>> Author(s) : T. Przygienda, J. Head, A. Sharma, P. Thubert, B. > >>>>> Rijsman, D. Afanasiev > >>>>> WG Chair(s) : Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang, Jeff Tantsura > >>>>> Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, John Scudder, Gunter Van de > >>>>> Velde<rfc9692.jhead.xml><rfc9692.jhead.1.xml> > >> > >> > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
