Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!--[rfced] BGP-LS and SPF a) Would you like to update the title of the document as shown below or otherwise, to more closely match how "BGP-LS" and "SPF" are handled in the title of RFC-to-be 9815? Original: Usage and Applicability of BGP Link-State Shortest Path Routing (BGP-SPF) in Data Centers Option A: Usage and Applicability of BGP Link-State Shortest Path First (SPF) Routing in Data Centers Option B: Usage and Applicability of BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) Shortest Path First (SPF) Routing in Data Centers b) To match how the companion document expands "BGP-LS" and "SPF", may we update the Abstract and Introduction as shown below for consistency? Original (Abstract): This document discusses the usage and applicability of BGP Link-State Shortest Path First (BGP-SPF) extensions in data center networks utilizing Clos or Fat-Tree topologies. Perhaps: This document discusses the usage and applicability of BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) Shortest Path First (SPF) extensions in data center networks utilizing Clos or Fat Tree topologies. ... Original (Introduction): This document complements [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf] by discussing the applicability of the BGP-SPF technology in a simple and fairly common deployment scenario, which is described in Section 3. Perhaps: This document complements [RFC9815] by discussing the applicability of the BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) Shortest Path First (SPF) technology in a simple and fairly common deployment scenario, which is described in Section 3. c) Throughout the text, we note "BGP-SPF" vs. "BGP SPF". "BGP SPF" is used both in the companion document and the IANA registry at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-spf/>. Would you like to update each instance of "BGP-SPF" to "BGP SPF" for consistency? See one example below: Original: The document is intended to provide simplified guidance for the deployment of BGP-SPF extensions. Perhaps: The document is intended to provide simplified guidance for the deployment of BGP SPF extensions. --> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> 3) <!-- [rfced] We updated "RFC 5580" to "RFC 5880" in the following sentence, and elsewhere in the document where "BFD" is referenced, as "BFD" is defined in RFC 5880 and not mentioned in RFC 5580. If this is not correct, please let us know. Original: This document also assumes knowledge of data center routing protocols such as BGP [RFC4271], BGP-SPF [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf], OSPF [RFC2328] [RFC5340], as well as data center Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) protocols like Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP) [RFC4957] and Bi- Directional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC5580]. Current: This document also assumes knowledge of data center routing protocols such as BGP [RFC4271], BGP-SPF [RFC9815], and OSPF [RFC2328] [RFC5340] as well as data center Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) protocols like the Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP) [RFC4957] and Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC5580]. --> 4) <!--[rfced] "SPF" is not mentioned in RFC 9552. Should a different RFC be referenced or was "OSPF" perhaps intended? Original: The BGP-SPF modifications allow BGP to overcome these limitations. Furthermore, using the BGP-LS Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) format allows the BGP-SPF data to be advertised for nodes, links, and prefixes in the BGP routing domain and used for Short- Path-First (SPF) computations [RFC9552]. --> 5) <!-- [rfced] We see that the approved I-D (v22) contains one instance of a keyword ("MUST" in Section 5.5.1). Is this intentional? If so, we will add the typical paragraph from BCP 14 regarding use of keywords after the Introduction and add RFCs 2119 and 8174 to the Normative References section. Otherwise, we will update "MUST" to "must". Original: The Link Local/Remote Identifiers of the peering interfaces MUST be used in the link NLRI as described in section 5.2.2 of [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf]. --> 6) <!--[rfced] Is "BGP-LS SPF Topology" correct or should it perhaps be "BGP-LS-SPF Topology" for consistency? Original: 5.5.2 BGP-LS SPF Topology Visibility for Management Perhaps: 5.5.2 BGP-LS-SPF Topology Visibility for Management --> 7) <!--[rfced] Would repeating "Non" make this section title more clear? The meaning seems to be applicability to topologies that are neither Clos nor Fat Tree topologies. Original: 6. Non-CLOS/FAT Tree Topology Applicability Current: 6. Non-Clos / Fat Tree Topology Applicability Perhaps: 6. Non-Clos / Non-Fat-Tree Topology Applicability --> 8) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We updated the following terms for consistency. Please let us know of any objections. BGP-LS Node NLRI Attribute SPF Status TLV -> BGP-LS-SPF Node NLRI Attribute SPF Status TLV (per the companion doc) BGP-LS SPF SAFI -> BGP-LS-SPF SAFI (per the companion doc) Clos Topologies -> Clos topologies Fat-Tree -> Fat Tree (per use in the RFC Series) link NLRI -> Link NLRI (per RFC 9552) Route Controllers -> route controllers (per companion document) Route Reflectors -> route reflectors (per companion document) Spine Nodes -> spine nodes Unicast -> unicast --> 9) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have updated the expansions for the following abbreviations to reflect the form on the right for consistency with the companion document and/or RFC Series. Bi-Directional Forwarding Detection (BFD) -> Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Equal-Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) -> Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) Top-Of-Rack (ToR) -> Top-of-Rack (ToR) --> 10) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> 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: - blackhole In addition, please consider whether "traditional" should be updated for clarity. While the NIST website <https://web.archive.org/web/20250214092458/https://www.nist.gov/ nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1> indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous. "Tradition" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone. --> Thank you. RFC Editor/kc/ar On Jun 30, 2025, [email protected] wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/06/30 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://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). 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://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). * 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://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. * Formatted output Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. Submitting changes ------------------ To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties include: * your coauthors * [email protected] (the RPC team) * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). * [email protected], which is a new archival mailing list to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion list: * More info: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc * The archive itself: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, [email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and its addition will be noted at the top of the message. You may submit your changes in one of two ways: An update to the provided XML file — OR — An explicit list of changes in this format Section # (or indicate Global) OLD: old text NEW: new text You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit list of changes, as either form is sufficient. We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. Approving for publication -------------------------- To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. Files ----- The files are available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9816 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9816 (draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-22) Title : Usage and Applicability of BGP Link-State Shortest Path Routing (BGP-SPF) in Data Centers Author(s) : K. Patel, A. Lindem, S. Zandi, G. Dawra, J. Dong WG Chair(s) : Jie Dong, Acee Lindem Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
