Good catch Jie...
Specifically, that would be:
*** rfc9816.orig.txt Sat Jul 12 17:29:45 2025
--- rfc9816.bfd.txt Mon Jul 14 06:46:43 2025
***************
*** 201,207 ****
Alternatively, as each and every router in the BGP-SPF domain will
have a complete view of the topology, the operator can also choose to
configure BGP sessions in the hop-by-hop peering model described in
! [RFC7938] along with BFD [RFC5580]. In doing so, while the hop-by-
hop peering model lacks the inherent benefits of the controller-based
model, BGP updates need not be serialized by the BGP best-path
algorithm in either of these models. This helps overall network
--- 201,207 ----
Alternatively, as each and every router in the BGP-SPF domain will
have a complete view of the topology, the operator can also choose to
configure BGP sessions in the hop-by-hop peering model described in
! [RFC7938] along with BFD [RFC5880]. In doing so, while the hop-by-
hop peering model lacks the inherent benefits of the controller-based
model, BGP updates need not be serialized by the BGP best-path
algorithm in either of these models. This helps overall network
***************
*** 251,257 ****
5.2.1. Sparse Peering Model
! Alternately, BFD [RFC5580] can be used to swiftly determine the
availability of links, and the BGP peering model can be significantly
sparser than the data center fabric. BGP-SPF sessions only need to
be established with enough peers to provide a biconnected graph. If
--- 251,257 ----
5.2.1. Sparse Peering Model
! Alternately, BFD [RFC5880] can be used to swiftly determine the
availability of links, and the BGP peering model can be significantly
sparser than the data center fabric. BGP-SPF sessions only need to
be established with enough peers to provide a biconnected graph. If
***************
*** 534,544 ****
[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
-
- [RFC5580] Tschofenig, H., Ed., Adrangi, F., Jones, M., Lior, A., and
- B. Aboba, "Carrying Location Objects in RADIUS and
- Diameter", RFC 5580, DOI 10.17487/RFC5580, August 2009,
- <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5580>.
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
--- 534,539 ----
Thanks,
Acee
> On Jul 13, 2025, at 10:55 PM, Dongjie (Jimmy) <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Alice,
>
> Thanks a lot for your effort on this document. I've reviewed this update and
> only find one nit:
>
> In some places of the document, the reference to BFD points to RFC 5580 by
> mistake, it should be updated to RFC 5880. And in the informative references,
> the reference to RFC5580 can be removed.
>
> Other than this nit, this version is good to me and I approve its
> publication.
>
> Best regards,
> Jie
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alice Russo <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2025 5:37 AM
>> To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]>; Keyur Patel
>> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Shawn Zandi
>> <[email protected]>; Dongjie (Jimmy) <[email protected]>;
>> [email protected]; [email protected]; james.n.guichard
>> <[email protected]>; auth48archive
>> <[email protected]>; RFC Editor <[email protected]>
>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9816 <draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-22> for
>> your review
>>
>> 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/rfc9816-lastrfcdiff.html shows only the
>> most recent changes).
>>
>> RFC Editor/ar
>>
>>> On Jul 11, 2025, at 1:06 PM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Alice,
>>>
>>>> On Jul 11, 2025, at 3:48 PM, Alice Russo <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Acee,
>>>>
>>>> We have updated the authors' contact information as requested. The
>> revised files are here (please refresh):
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816.html
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816.txt
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816.pdf
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816.xml
>>>>
>>>> This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816-diff.html
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816-rfcdiff.html (side by
>>>> side)
>>>>
>>>> This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816-auth48diff.html
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816-auth48rfcdiff.html (side
>>>> by side)
>>>>
>>>> This diff file shows only the changes since the last posted version:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816-lastrfcdiff.html
>>>>
>>>> As mentioned in a separate mail re: 9815, we suggest considering this
>> update to the title (remove hyphen and add acronym).
>>>>
>>>> -- 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
>>>
>>> Sure,
>>>
>>> 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/rfc9816
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>> RFC Editor/ar
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 10, 2025, at 4:17 AM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Alice,
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 9, 2025, at 3:19 PM, Alice Russo <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Acee, Ketan (as AD),
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *AD - Please review this change and let us know if you approve (changed
>> from "MUST" to "must" per Acee's reply to #5).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Current:
>>>>>> The Link Local/Remote Identifiers of the peering interfaces must be
>>>>>> used in the link NLRI as described in Section 5.2.2 of [RFC9815].
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure. This is an "Informational" status document.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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/rfc9816.html
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816.txt
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816.pdf
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816.xml
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D:
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816-diff.html
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816-rfcdiff.html (side by
>>>>>> side)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far:
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816-auth48diff.html
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9816-auth48rfcdiff.html (side
>>>>>> by side)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Re: #4, we updated to the text you provided except for expanding "SPF",
>> as it has already been expanded within the document and is used earlier
>> within the same sentence without expansion. If you prefer otherwise, please
>> let us know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FYI, in Section 2, this has been updated as follows; please let us know
>>>>>> if
>> you prefer otherwise.
>>>>>> Old: BGP-SPF [RFC9815]
>>>>>> New: BGP-LS SPF [RFC9815]
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure - just not BGP - ....
>>>>>
>>>>> 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/rfc9816
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>> RFC Editor/ar
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 3, 2025, at 4:58 PM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi RFC Editor,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you for your work on this document.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 2025, at 2:21 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Use option A consistent with the base document - "BGP Link-State
>> Shortest Path First (SPF) Routing" in RFC 9815.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Use;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Use:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Use "BGP SPF" then.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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].
>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure - good catch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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].
>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Use:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The BGP-SPF modifications allow BGP to overcome these limitations.
>>>>>>> Furthermore, using the BGP-LS Network Layer Reachability
>>>>>>> Information
>>>>>>> (NLRI) format [RFC9552] 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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].
>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please change to "must" for BCP.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Leave as:
>>>>>>> 6. Non-Clos / 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
>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Equal-Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) -> Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Top-Of-Rack (ToR) -> Top-of-Rack (ToR)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Replace "blackhole" with "routes to unreachable destinations".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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#ta
>> ble1>
>>>>>>>> indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous.
>>>>>>>> "Tradition" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone.
>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "usual BGP underlays" and "classical BGP routing".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please update my contact information with a new affiliation:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Acee Lindem
>>>>>>> Arrcus, Inc.
>>>>>>> 301 Midenhall Way
>>>>>>> Cary, NC 27513
>>>>>>> United States of America
>>>>>>> Email: [email protected]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Acee
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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-4Q9l2USxIAe
>> 6P8O4Zc
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * 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]
