Acee, Sorry if I have missed your reply to this question: > In Section 6.5.1, should "BGP-LS-LINK NLRI" be "BGP-LS-SPF Link NLRI" or > otherwise?
Thank you. RFC Editor/ar > On Jul 15, 2025, at 12:38 PM, Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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
