Acee, Thank you for your reply. 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 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 13, 2025, at 10:00 AM, Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > H Alice, > > Thanks for your work on this document. I'm very happy with it. I do have a > few cosmetic changes below for consistency. These include: > > 1. Get rid of the unique term and acronym Link State NLRI Database (LSNDB) > as this is not used in RFC 9552 or anywhere else. Simply use LSDB. > 2. Consistently point to the error handling in section 7.1. > > Refer to the attached RFC diff > > Thanks, > Acee > <rfc9815.orig.diff.html> > >> On Jul 11, 2025, at 5:37 PM, Alice Russo <aru...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: >> >> Acee, >> >> Thank you for your reply; the files have been updated accordingly. Please >> refresh the same URLs as below >> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9815-lastrfcdiff.html shows only the >> most recent changes). Remaining question: >> >> In Section 6.5.1, should "BGP-LS-LINK NLRI" be "BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI" or >> otherwise? >> >> >> Other notes: >> >> * FYI, the short title (which appears in the running header of the PDF) has >> been updated as well. It is similar to that of 9816. Please let us know if >> you prefer otherwise. >> >> -- 9815 >> Original: BGP Link-State SPF Routing >> Curent: BGP-LS SPF Routing >> >> -- 9816 >> Original: BGP-SPF Applicability >> Current: BGP-LS SPF Applicability >> >> * FYI, the title of Section 5.1 has been updated to "BGP-LS-SPF SAFI" (added >> one hyphen to match usage in the text that follows and in 9816). >> >> RFC Editor/ar >> >>> On Jul 11, 2025, at 1:06 PM, Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Alice, >>> >>>> On Jul 11, 2025, at 3:44 PM, Alice Russo <aru...@staff.rfc-editor.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> I agree - this is more consistent. Let’s go with the “Perhaps” options. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Acee >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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
