Hi Alice, I approve this version of the document.
Thanks, Acee > On Jul 15, 2025, at 2:58 PM, Alice Russo <aru...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > 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
