[auth48] Re: Final review: RFC-to-be 10005 (draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth-24) in XML

["Serge Krier (sekrier)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Alice, I will comment/ack by tomorrow.

Regards


From: Alice Russo <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, 8 June 2026 at 20:03
To: Das, Reshma <reshma.das=[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; Serge Krier (sekrier) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; RFC Editor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Final review: RFC-to-be 10005 (draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth-24) in XML

Reshma,

Thank you for your reply. The revised files are here (please refresh):
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10005.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10005.txt
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10005.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10005.xml

This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10005-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10005-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10005-auth48diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10005-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Re: #1
We await word from Pradosh on this.


Re: #6
> RD> It would be good to retained  this section to provide useful context on
> the evolution of the LBWC and its impact on interoperability.


Ack; Appendix A remains as is.


Re: #7b
> RD> Adj-RIB-In" and "Adj-RIB-Out" are defined in [RFC 4271],
> may be we can add a definition referring to the same.

Added a sentence in Section 3.1 and a normative reference to RFC 4271; please let us know if you prefer otherwise.


Re: #8
> RD> [...] In particular, the use of "tradition" is intended to convey established practice, and its meaning is clear in context.

Ack.

FYI, we updated the sentence to remove the word 'routing' as the original phrase 'Traditional equal load-balancing routing' reads oddly. The phrase 'equal load-balancing' is used in RFC 8431 for example.

Original:
   Traditional equal load-balancing routing does not
   account for the varying capacities of different paths.

Current:
   Traditional equal load-balancing does not
   account for the varying capacities of different paths.

Perhaps (if "routing" is significant here):
   In routing, conventional equal load-balancing does not
   account for the varying capacities of different paths.


We will wait to hear from you again and from your coauthors
before continuing the publication process. This page shows
the Final Review status of your document:
  https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc10005/

Thank you.

Alice Russo
RFC Production Center

> On Jun 4, 2026, at 5:24 PM, Das, Reshma <reshma.das=[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi RFC Editors,
>
> Thank you for reviewing and editing the document. I have gone through the diff (https://auth48-transition.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10005-diff.html) and the changes look good.
>
> Please find my other comments inline (RD>).
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Reshma Das
>
>
> Get Outlook for Mac
> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 at 3:54 PM
> To: [...]
> Subject: Re: Final review: RFC-to-be 10005 (draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth-24) in XML
>
> Authors,
>
> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file.
>
> 1) <!--[rfced] Pradosh, we note that your email address in this document
> does not match your email address in the Datatracker. Please let us know
> which one you prefer within the RFC, and please consider updating
> your Datatracker account if it's not that one.
>
>   This Document: [e-mail]
> —>
>
> RD>I had updated this as per Pradosh’s request. I will let him also confirm this.
>
> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
> the title) for use on https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/search__;!!NpxR!kADhD5efgy5ovW-4_71togTd7OHPLdHdLb6Zry9FdywhHmTJmKaohaJsRquRVNABhfx6Tc135z27EC1QBrz4og$ . -->
>
>
> 3) <!-- [rfced] In the text below, what does "connecting to a remote network"
> refer to? How may we clarify?
>
> Original:
>    The Link Bandwidth Extended Community is defined as a BGP extended
>    community that carries the bandwidth information of a router,
>    represented by BGP Next Hop, connecting to a remote network.
>
> Perhaps:
>    The Link Bandwidth Extended Community is defined as a BGP extended
>    community that carries the bandwidth information of a router
>    (represented by BGP next hop) and connects to a remote network.
>
> Or:
>    The Link Bandwidth Extended Community is defined as a BGP extended
>    community that carries the bandwidth information of a router
>    (represented by BGP Next Hop) that is connecting to a remote network.
> —>
>
> RD> The second option looks good:
> "   The Link Bandwidth Extended Community is defined as a BGP extended
>    community that carries the bandwidth information of a router
>    (represented by BGP Next Hop) that is connecting to a remote network.”
>
>
> 4) <!-- [rfced] May we adjust this text for readability? Specifically,
> may we move "inconsistent behavior could ..." to the beginning of
> the first sentence, and add "so then" to the second sentence?
>
> Original:
>    In circumstances where networks have deployed a mixture of
>    implementations supporting this document's procedures for both
>    transitivity types, and older implementations that only understand
>    one transitivity type, inconsistent behavior could result.  A prime
>    example is when a route received by a BGP speaker contains both a
>    transitive and a non-transitive Link Bandwidth Extended Community and
>    that BGP speaker performs an operation that updates only one of the
>    Link Bandwidth Extended Communities, the other community may have an
>    inconsistent value.  As a result, downstream BGP speakers that may
>    receive such routes may perform inappropriate weighted load
>    balancing.
>
> Perhaps:
>    Inconsistent behavior could occur when networks have deployed a mixture
>    of implementations supporting this document's procedures for both
>    transitivity types, or have deployed older implementations that only
>    understand one transitivity type.  A prime example is when a route
>    received by a BGP speaker contains both a transitive and a
>    non-transitive Link Bandwidth Extended Community, and that BGP speaker
>    performs an operation that updates only one of the Link Bandwidth
>    Extended Communities, so then the other community may have an inconsistent
>    value.  As a result, downstream BGP speakers that may
>    receive such routes may perform inappropriate weighted load
>    balancing.
> —>
>
> RD> Ack, This change is good.
>
> 5) <!-- [rfced] What is meant to be "filtered" in the text below? May we adjust
> as follows to clarify?
>
> Original:
>    One option would be to filter either at advertisement time on the older BGP
>    speaker the unsupported transitivity type of Link Bandwidth Extended
>    Community - if the implementation is capable of such filtering.
>
> Perhaps:
>    One option would be to filter the unsupported transitivity type of the
>    Link Bandwidth Extended Community at advertisement time on the older BGP
>    speaker, if the implementation is capable of such filtering.
> —>
> RD> Ack, This change is good.
>
>
> 6) <!--[rfced] Is Appendix A (Document History), which describes an
> intentional change between draft versions, needed in the RFC? Seems
> this was relevant as the draft was undergoing revision; is it relevant
> in the RFC?
>
> Current:
> Appendix A.  Document History
>
>    The BGP Link Bandwidth Extended Community has evolved over several
>    versions of the IETF draft.  In the earlier versions up to draft-
>    ietf-idr-link-bandwidth-08, only the non-transitive version of the
>    Link Bandwidth Extended Community was supported.  However, starting
>    from draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth-09, both transitive and non-
>    transitive versions of the Link Bandwidth Extended Community are
>    supported.
>
>    A BGP speaker (sender or receiver) needs to be upgraded to support
>    the procedures defined in this document to provide full
>    interoperability for both transitive and non-transitive versions of
>    the Link Bandwidth Extended Community.  In order to simplify
>    implementations, it is not a goal to provide interoperability by
>    upgrading only the Route Reflector (RR).
> —>
>
> RD> It would be good to retained  this section to provide useful context on
> the evolution of the LBWC and its impact on interoperability.
>
>
> 7) <!-- [rfced] Please review the following questions and changes regarding the
> abbreviations used in this document:
>
> a) We note the following different uses of the term below. We have updated the
> first instance in this document to "Autonomous System Number (ASN)", and we
> have updated all instances after to use the abbreviation "ASN".
> Please review these changes for accuracy.
>
> Autonomous System (AS) number
> Autonomous System number
> ASNs
> AS number
>
> RD> ACK.
>
> b) We note that "Local-RIB" is expanded as "Local Routing Information Base
> (Local-RIB)". Should the abbreviations below also be expanded or should a
> definition be referenced?
>
> Adj-RIB-In
> Adj-RIB-Out
>
> RD> Adj-RIB-In" and "Adj-RIB-Out" are defined in [RFC 4271],
> may be we can add a definition referring to the same.
>
>
>
> c) We have added expansions for abbreviations upon first use
> per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each
> expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
>
> Route Reflector (RR)
> —>
>
> RD> ACK
>
> 8) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
> Style Guide <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/*inclusive_language__;Iw!!NpxR!kADhD5efgy5ovW-4_71togTd7OHPLdHdLb6Zry9FdywhHmTJmKaohaJsRquRVNABhfx6Tc135z27EC3mHc6evQ$ >
> 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 "tradition" should be updated for clarity.
> While the NIST website
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://web.archive.org/web/20250214092458/https:/*www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions*table1__;LyM!!NpxR!kADhD5efgy5ovW-4_71togTd7OHPLdHdLb6Zry9FdywhHmTJmKaohaJsRquRVNABhfx6Tc135z27EC3hobiVjQ$ >
> indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous.
> "Tradition" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone.
>
> Original:
>   Traditional equal load-balancing routing does not account for...
> —>
>
> RD> I have reviewed the Inclusive Language guidance and do not believe any changes are needed.
> In particular, the use of "tradition" is intended to convey established practice, and its meaning is clear in context.
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> Kaelin Foody and Alice Russo
> RFC Production Center