Acee, Thank you for your reply and Shawn's updated contact information; please see the follow-ups below. The revised files are here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815.xml
This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815-rfcdiff.html (side by side) This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) This diff file shows only the changes since the last posted version: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815-lastrfcdiff.html We believe this question remains: > Re: #19 (Section 6.5.1), per your reply, no change has been made. > There is one instance of "BGP-LS-LINK NLRI" in the document -- > should it be changed to "BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI" or otherwise? Re: >>> a) In light of that, would you like instances of 'BGP - Link State >>> (BGP-LS)' in this document to be changed to "BGP Link State (BGP-LS)", even >>> though it doesn't exactly match RFC 9552 or the IANA registry >>> (https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/)? >> >> Yes. In addition to thinking the original was a mistake, the whole purpose >> of the document is the describe SPF Routing using BGP-LS. Please the >> ill-positioned hyphen confused the intent. The document has been updated as requested. Please review. I see your point re: the hyphen. That said, to make the title of this document match how the term is used within the document (and more similar to how BGP-LS has been used in past RFC titles, as listed below), what do you think of updating the title as follows? (remove hyphen and add acronym) -- 9815 Current: BGP Link-State Shortest Path First (SPF) Routing Perhaps: BGP Link State (BGP-LS) Shortest Path First (SPF) Routing -- 9816 Current: Usage and Applicability of BGP Link-State Shortest Path First (SPF) Routing in Data Centers Perhaps: Usage and Applicability of BGP Link State (BGP-LS) Shortest Path First (SPF) Routing in Data Centers Past usage in RFC titles: RFC 8571: BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric Extensions RFC 9029: Updates to the Allocation Policy for the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registries RFC 9085: Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing RFC 9086: Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing BGP Egress Peer Engineering RFC 9104: Distribution of Traffic Engineering Extended Administrative Groups Using the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) RFC 9247: BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) RFC 9294: Application-Specific Link Attributes Advertisement Using the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) RFC9351: Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Flexible Algorithm Advertisement RFC 9514: Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) And one without the acronym: RFC 8814: Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State We will wait to hear from you again and from your coauthors before continuing the publication process. This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9815 Thank you. RFC Editor/ar > On Jul 11, 2025, at 8:18 AM, Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Alice, > > Please update Shawn's contact information as well: > > Shawn Zandi > Email: shaf...@shafagh.com <mailto:shaf...@shafagh.com> > > Thanks, > Acee > >> On Jul 10, 2025, at 7:14 AM, Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Alice, >> >>> On Jul 9, 2025, at 3:19 PM, Alice Russo <aru...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: >>> >>> Acee, >>> >>> Thank you for your reply. My apologies for the delay. Please see the >>> follow-ups below. The revised files are here (please refresh): >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815.txt >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815.pdf >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815.xml >>> >>> This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815-diff.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >>> >>> This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815-auth48diff.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) >>> >>> >>> Re: #19 (Section 6.5.1), per your reply, no change has been made. >>> There is one instance of "BGP-LS-LINK NLRI" in the document -- >>> should it be changed to "BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI" or otherwise? >>> >>> >>> Re: #28 (Abbreviations, specifically BGP-LS) >>>>> c) We updated the following expansions to reflect the form on the right >>>>> for consistency with the RFC Series: >>>>> >>>>> BGP Link-State (BGP-LS) -> BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) (per RFC 9552) >>>> >>>> This looks strange but we can go with the RFC 9552 expansion. >>> >>> >>> >>> In RFC-to-be 9816, we note your decision to use "BGP Link State (BGP-LS)" >>> in the abstract and introduction. >>> >>> a) In light of that, would you like instances of 'BGP - Link State >>> (BGP-LS)' in this document to be changed to "BGP Link State (BGP-LS)", even >>> though it doesn't exactly match RFC 9552 or the IANA registry >>> (https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/)? >> >> Yes. In addition to thinking the original was a mistake, the whole purpose >> of the document is the describe SPF Routing using BGP-LS. Please the >> ill-positioned hyphen confused the intent. >> >> >>> >>> b) Is it correct that you want the RFC title to remain as is? >>> >>> Original: >>> >>> BGP Link-State Shortest Path First (SPF) Routing >> >> Yes. >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> We will wait to hear from you again and from your coauthors >>> before continuing the publication process. This page shows >>> the AUTH48 status of your document: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9815 >>> >>> Thank you. >>> RFC Editor/ar -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
