<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629-xhtml.ent">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="no"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" category="std" docName="draft-ietf-rift-kv-tie-structure-and-processing-01" ipr="trust200902" obsoletes="" submissionType="IETF" updates="" xml:lang="en" tocInclude="true" tocDepth="3" symRefs="true" sortRefs="true" version="3">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="draft-ietf-rift-kv-tie-structure-and-processing-01">
      RIFT Key/Value TIE Structure and Processing
</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-rift-kv-tie-structure-and-processing-01"/>
    <author role="editor" fullname="Jordan Head" initials="J." surname="Head">
      <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>1137 Innovation Way
          </street>
          <city>Sunnyvale</city>
          <region>CA
          </region>
          <code/>
          <country>USA
          </country>
        </postal>
        <phone/>
        <email>jhead@juniper.net
        </email>
        <uri/>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Tony Przygienda" initials="T." surname="Przygienda">
      <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>1137 Innovation Way
          </street>
          <city>Sunnyvale</city>
          <region>CA
          </region>
          <code/>
          <country>USA
          </country>
        </postal>
        <phone/>
        <email>prz@juniper.net
        </email>
        <uri/>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2024"/>
    <area>Routing Area</area>
    <workgroup>RIFT</workgroup>
    <keyword>rift</keyword>
    <keyword>kv</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <t>The RIFT (Routing in Fat-Trees) protocol allows for key/value
            pairs to be advertised within Key-Value Topology Information Elements 
            (KV-TIEs). The data contained within these KV-TIEs can be 
            used for any imaginable purpose. This document defines the
            various Key-Types (i.e. Well-Known, OUI, and Experimental) and a 
            method to structure corresponding values.
      </t>
    </abstract>
    <note>
      <name>Requirements Language</name>
      <t>
        The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
        NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
        "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
        described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they
        appear in all capitals, as shown here.
      </t>
    </note>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <section toc="default" numbered="true">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>The Routing in Fat-Trees <xref target="RIFT" format="default">RIFT</xref> protocol  
        allows for key/value pairs to be advertised within Key-Value Topology 
        Information Elements (KV-TIEs). There are no restrictions
        placed on the type of data that is contained in KV-TIEs nor what the
        data is used for.
      </t>
      <t>For example, it might be beneficial to advertise overlay protocol state 
        from leaf nodes to the Top-of-Fabric (ToF) nodes. This would make it possible to view critical 
        state of a fabric-wide service from a single ToF node rather than 
        retrieving and reconciling the same state from multiple leaf nodes.
      </t>
    </section>
    <section numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Key-Value Structure</name>
      <t>This section describes the generic Key structure and semantics, 
        <xref target="f1" format="default"/> further illustrates these components.</t>
      <figure anchor="f1">
        <name>Generic Key-Value Structure</name>
        <artwork align="center" alt="" name="" type=""><![CDATA[
 0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|   Key-Type    |               Key Identifier                  |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                      Values (variable)                        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    ]]></artwork>
      </figure>
      <t><strong>where:</strong></t>
      <ul empty="true" spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <dl newline="true" spacing="normal">
            <dt><strong>Key-Type:</strong></dt>
            <dd>
              <t>A 1-byte value that identifies the Key-Type. It MUST be a 
                  reserved value from the RIFT Key-Type Registry that is defined 
                  later in this document.</t>
              <t>The range of valid values is 1 - 255 (2^8-1).</t>
              <t>0 is an illegal value and MUST NOT be allocated to or used by any 
                  implementation. It MUST be ignored on receipt.</t>
            </dd>
            <dt><strong>Key Identifier:</strong></dt>
            <dd>
              <t>A 3-byte value that identifies the specific key and describes 
              the structure of the contained values.</t>
              <t>The range of valid values is 1 - 16777215 (2^24-1).</t>
              <t>0 is an illegal value and MUST NOT be allocated to or used by any 
                    implementation. It MUST be ignored on receipt.</t>
            </dd>
            <dt><strong>Values:</strong></dt>
            <dd>A variable length value that contains data associated with the 
              Key Identifier. It SHOULD contain 1 or more elements. Whether the collection
              of elements allows duplicates and/or is ordered is governed by
              the particular Key Identifier's specification.</dd>
          </dl>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <section>
        <name>Key Sub-Type</name>
        <t>The Key Sub-Type is an OPTIONAL mechanism to further describe 
          the contained values and their structure. This is illustrated by <xref target="f5" format="default"/>.
          While the Key Sub-Type is optional, it MUST be used when the Key-Type is either Well-Known or Experimental 
          in order to avoid interoperability issues.</t>
        <figure anchor="f5">
          <name>Generic Key-Value Structure with Key Sub-Type</name>
          <artwork align="center" alt="" name="" type=""><![CDATA[
 0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|   Key-Type    |  Key Sub-Type |        Key Identifier         |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                      Values (variable)                        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    
        ]]></artwork>
        </figure>
        <t><strong>where:</strong></t>
        <ul empty="true" spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <dl newline="true" spacing="normal">
              <dt><strong>Key Sub-Type:</strong></dt>
              <dd>
                <t>An OPTIONAL 1-byte value that identifies the Key Sub-Type which describes 
              the structure of the contained values. If used, it MUST be a reserved value from 
              the RIFT Well-Known Key Sub-Types registry.</t>
                <t>The range of valid values is 1 - 255 (2^8-1).</t>
                <t>0 is an illegal value and MUST NOT be allocated to or used by any 
                  implementation. It MUST be ignored on receipt.</t>
              </dd>
              <dt><strong>Key Identifier:</strong></dt>
              <dd>
                <t>If the Key Sub-Type is used, it inherently reduces the Key Identifier space from 
              3-bytes to 2-bytes. The Key Identifier is otherwise unchanged.</t>
                <t>The range of valid values is now 1 - 65535 (2^16-1).</t>
                <t>0 is an illegal value and MUST NOT be allocated to or used by any 
                    implementation. It MUST be ignored on receipt.</t>
              </dd>
            </dl>
          </li>
        </ul>
      </section>
      <section numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Experimental Key-Type</name>
        <t>This section reserves a value in the RIFT Key-Type Registry to indicate an
        Experimental Key-Type.</t>
        <t>As shown in <xref target="f2" format="default"/>, the Key-Type will be used to 
        identify the Key-Type as Experimental. The Key Identifier will be
        used to identify the specific key and describe the 
        structure of the contained values.
        </t>
        <figure anchor="f2">
          <name>Experimental Key-Type</name>
          <artwork align="center" alt="" name="" type=""><![CDATA[
 0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|       1       |  Key Sub-Type |        Key Identifier         |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                 Experimental Values (variable)                |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    ]]></artwork>
        </figure>
      </section>
      <section numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Well-Known Key-Type</name>
        <t>This section reserves a value in the RIFT Key-Type Registry to indicate 
        Well-Known Key-Types that all implementations SHOULD support.</t>
        <t>As shown in <xref target="f3" format="default"/>, the Key-Type will be used to 
        identify the Key-Type as Well-Known. The Key Identifier will be 
        used to identify the specific key and describe the structure of 
        the contained values.
        </t>
        <figure anchor="f3">
          <name>Well-Known Key-Type</name>
          <artwork align="center" alt="" name="" type=""><![CDATA[
 0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|       2       |  Key Sub-Type |        Key Identifier         |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                 Well-Known Values (variable)                  |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    ]]></artwork>
        </figure>
      </section>
      <section numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>OUI Key-Type</name>
        <t>This section reserves a value in the RIFT Key-Type Registry to indicate an
        OUI (vendor-specific) Key-Type that any implementation MAY support.</t>
        <t>As shown in <xref target="f4" format="default"/>, the Key-Type will be used to 
        identify the Key-Type as OUI. The Key Identifier MUST use the implementing 
        organization's reserved OUI space to indicate the key and value structure.
        </t>
        <figure anchor="f4">
          <name>OUI Key-Type</name>
          <artwork align="center" alt="" name="" type=""><![CDATA[
 0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|       3       |              OUI Key Identifier               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|               Vendor Specific Values (variable)               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    ]]></artwork>
        </figure>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="design" toc="default" numbered="true">
      <name>Design Considerations</name>
      <t>While no restrictions are placed on Key-Value data or what it is used for, it 
        is RECOMMENDED that a serialized <xref target="THRIFT">Thrift</xref> model be used for simpler interoperability. 
        <xref target="RIFT-AUTO-EVPN" format="default"/> is an example of 
        this type of implementation.</t>
      <t>Key-Value elements SHOULD NOT be used to carry topology information
        used by RIFT itself to perform distributed computations.</t>
      <section anchor="tie-breaking" toc="default" numbered="true">
        <name>Tie-Breaking Considerations</name>
        <t>In cases where KV-TIEs are flooded from north to south, policies SHOULD be implemented 
        in order to avoid network-wide flooding.</t>
        <t>For networks with more than one ToF node, it is RECOMMENDED that those ToF nodes contain identical KV-TIE 
          information when being distributed from north to south. <xref target="RIFT" format="default">RIFT</xref> requires 
          that only one KV-TIE is selected when identical keys are received from multiple northbound neighbors. 
          If this is not considered then the tie-breaking rules may cause a node to select a suboptimal KV-TIE. 
          Consider a case where failure conditions cause the ToF nodes to become split-brained. While the Key-Type and Key Identifier will 
          be identical, the value(s) contained within may differ. The node(s) receiving these differing KV-TIEs will select 
          the one from the ToF node with the highest System ID, potentially leading to unintended effects.
        </t>
        <section>
          <name>Southbound Key-Value TIE Tie-Break Sub-Type</name>
          <t>This Key-Value pair contains information that allows an implementation to test and verify proper tie-breaking behavior for the Southbound 
            Key store.
          </t>
          <figure>
            <name>Southbound Tie-Break (Global) Sub-Type</name>
            <artset>
              <artwork align="center" name="" type="ascii-art" originalSrc="art/rift-kv-global-southbound-tie-break-kv.ascii-art"> 0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|  Well-Known   |   Tie Break   |        Key Identifier         |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|     (System ID,                                               |
|      Level),                                                  |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+</artwork>
            </artset>
          </figure>
          <t><strong>where:</strong></t>
          <ul empty="true" spacing="normal">
            <li>
              <dl newline="true" spacing="normal">
                <dt><strong>System ID:</strong></dt>
                <dd>A REQUIRED value indicating the node's unique System ID.</dd>
                <dt><strong>Level:</strong></dt>
                <dd>A RECOMMENDED value indicating the node's level.</dd>
              </dl>
            </li>
          </ul>
        </section>
      </section>
      <section>
        <name>Key Target</name>
        <t>The Key Target is an OPTIONAL value that identifies group(s) of node(s) that 
          are intended to receive a given Key-Value TIE. Key Targets are 64-bits in length 
          with a valid range of 0 - 18446744073709551615 (2^64-1), this will reduce the chances 
          that Key Target values collide.
        </t>
        <t>A value of all 0s represent that every node is intended to receive 
          this Key-Value TIE and MUST NOT be used for any other reason.</t>
        <t>A value of all 1s represent that all leaf nodes are intended to receive 
          this Key-Value TIE and MUST NOT be used for any other reason.</t>
        <t>Any other value MUST be derived from the following normative algorithm.</t>
        <figure>
          <name>Key Target Standard Algorithm</name>
          <artset>
            <artwork align="center" name="" type="ascii-art" originalSrc="art/rift-kv-target-std-algo.ascii-art">/// random seeds used in algorithms to increase entropy
pub const RANDOMSEEDS: [UnsignedSystemID; 3] = [
    67438371571u64,
    37087353685,
    88675895388,
];

/// given a system ID delivers the bits set by the according Bloom Filter in the southbound
/// key value target.
///
/// @note: This is standardized and cannot be changed between releases!
pub (crate) fn target2bits(target: UnsignedSystemID) -&gt; KeyValueTargetType {
    (0 as usize .. 3)
        .map(|s| {
            let rot = (target ^ RANDOMSEEDS[s]).rotate_left(s as _);
            rot.to_ne_bytes().iter().fold(0, |v: u8, nv| v.rotate_right(4) ^ *nv) % 64
        })
        .fold(0, |v, nv| v | v | (1 &lt;&lt; nv))
}</artwork>
          </artset>
        </figure>
        <section>
          <name>Key Target Processing</name>
          <t>Nodes that support the processing of Key Targets MUST only do so on 
            KV-TIEs in the southbound direction. Key Targets MUST NOT be present on KV-TIEs 
            in the northbound direction and are otherwise ignored and logged.</t>
          <t>
            Nodes that do not support the processing of Key Targets MUST continue to send KV-TIEs 
            to all nodes in the appropriate direction. Additionally, Key Targets MUST be preserved 
            when KV-TIEs are re-originated in the southbound direction.
          </t>
          <section>
            <name>Purging/Rollover</name>
            <t>There are several reasons a node may select a different KV-TIE. For example, the KV-TIE is 
              considered newer due to the sequence number incrementing, there was a change in the original 
              tie-breaking result between multiple KV-TIEs, or a loss of northbound connectivity to the node 
              that advertised the previously selected KV-TIE.</t>
            <t>Consider a case where Leaf-1, Leaf-2, and Leaf-3 are members of a group of nodes represented by 
              Key Target KT1. If Leaf-2 is removed from that group and a newer instance of the KV-TIE needs to be flooded 
              Leaf-2 will have to maintain the older KV-TIE in the LSDB until the lifetime expires. This could lead to 
              suboptimal behavior in the fabric.
            </t>
            <t>If the new KV-TIE being flooded does not include the previous Key Target value, then implementations 
              SHOULD flood the newer instance of the KV-TIE with a very short lifetime to nodes that belonged to the previous Key 
              Target but not the new Key Target. This logic only applies to KV-TIEs being flooded in the southbound direction.</t>
          </section>
        </section>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="IANA" toc="default" numbered="true">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>Per <xref target="RFC8126"/>, IANA is requested to create two new registries under the top-level "RIFT" category:</t>
      <ul>
        <li>RIFT Key-Types</li>
        <li>RIFT Well-Known Key-Types</li>
      </ul>
      <t>The following sections detail each registry's individual requirements and suggested values.</t>
      <t>Experts reviewing requests for new values to either registry MUST consider the items in the 
        <xref target="expert_review_guide">Expert Review Guidance</xref> section.</t>
      <section numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>RIFT Key-Types</name>
        <t>This section requests that IANA create and help govern the following registry:</t>
        <ul empty="true" spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <dl newline="true" spacing="normal">
              <dt><strong>Registry Name:</strong></dt>
              <dd>RIFT Key-Types</dd>
              <dt><strong>Registration Procedures:</strong></dt>
              <dd>Expert Review</dd>
              <dt><strong>Description:</strong></dt>
              <dd>Key-Type registry for the RIFT protocol.</dd>
              <dt><strong>Reference:</strong></dt>
              <dd>This document.</dd>
            </dl>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <section numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>RIFT Key-Types Requested Entries</name>
          <t>This section requests that IANA register the following suggested values 
            to the "RIFT Key-Types" registry.
          </t>
          <table align="left">
            <thead>
              <tr>
                <th align="left">Value</th>
                <th align="left">Key-Type</th>
                <th align="left">Description</th>
                <th align="left">Status/Reference</th>
              </tr>
            </thead>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td align="left">0</td>
                <td align="left">Illegal</td>
                <td align="left">Not allowed.</td>
                <td align="left">This document</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td align="left">1</td>
                <td align="left">Experimental</td>
                <td align="left">Indicates that the Key-Type is Experimental.</td>
                <td align="left">This document.</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td align="left">2</td>
                <td align="left">Well-Known</td>
                <td align="left">Indicates that the Key-Type is Well-Known.</td>
                <td align="left">This document.</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td align="left">3</td>
                <td align="left">OUI</td>
                <td align="left">Indicates that the Key-Type is OUI (vendor specific).</td>
                <td align="left">This document.</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </section>
      </section>
      <section numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>RIFT Well-Known Key Sub-Types</name>
        <t>This section requests that IANA create and help govern the following registry:</t>
        <ul empty="true" spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <dl newline="true" spacing="normal">
              <dt><strong>Registry Name:</strong></dt>
              <dd>RIFT Well-Known Key Sub-Types</dd>
              <dt><strong>Registration Procedures:</strong></dt>
              <dd>Expert Review</dd>
              <dt><strong>Description:</strong></dt>
              <dd>Well-Known Key Sub-Types registry for the RIFT protocol.</dd>
              <dt><strong>Reference:</strong></dt>
              <dd>This document.</dd>
            </dl>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <section numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>RIFT Well-Known Key Sub-Types Requested Entries</name>
          <t>This section requests that IANA register the following suggested values 
              to the "RIFT Well-Known Key Sub-Types" Registry.
          </t>
          <table align="left">
            <thead>
              <tr>
                <th align="left">Value</th>
                <th align="left">Key-Identifier</th>
                <th align="left">Description</th>
                <th align="left">Status/Reference</th>
              </tr>
            </thead>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td align="left">0</td>
                <td align="left">Illegal</td>
                <td align="left">Not allowed.</td>
                <td align="left">This document.</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td align="left">1</td>
                <td align="left">MAC/IP Binding</td>
                <td align="left">To be defined.</td>
                <td align="left">To be defined.</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td align="left">2</td>
                <td align="left">FAM Security Roll-Over Key</td>
                <td align="left">To be defined.</td>
                <td align="left">To be defined.</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td align="left">127</td>
                <td align="left">Southbound Tie-Break Key Sub-Type</td>
                <td align="left">Used for Southbound Keystore tie-breaking testing and verification.</td>
                <td align="left">This document.</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </section>
      </section>
      <section anchor="expert_review_guide" toc="default" numbered="true">
        <name>Expert Review Guidance</name>
        <t>Experts reviewing requests for values from the "RIFT Key-Types" registry or 
          the "RIFT Well-Known Key-Types" registry are responsible for the following:</t>
        <ol>
            <li>
            <t>Determining the existence of a specification that clearly 
              defines the purpose supporting the request and MUST contain all 
              required fields for given registry.</t>
            <t>The document MUST also be permenent and publically available.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Ensuring that any requests are made available to the RIFT working 
              group for review should the work originate from outside of the RIFT
              Working Group.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Ensuring that any work produce outside of the IETF does not conflict 
              with any work that is already published or actively pursuing being 
              published.</t>
          </li>
        </ol>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>This document introduces no new security concerns to RIFT or other
         specifications referenced in this document given that the Key-Value TIEs
         are already extensively secured by the
         <xref target="RIFT" format="default">RIFT</xref> protocol specification itself. 
      </t>
    </section>
    <section numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Acknowledgements</name>
      <t>To be provided.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references>
      <name>Normative References</name>
      <reference anchor="RFC8174" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml">
        <front>
          <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
          <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
          <date month="May" year="2017"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC2119" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
        <front>
          <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <author initials="S." surname="Bradner" fullname="S. Bradner">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date year="1997" month="March"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8126" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8126.xml">
        <front>
          <title>Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs</title>
          <author initials="M." surname="Cotton" fullname="M. Cotton">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author initials="B." surname="Leiba" fullname="B. Leiba">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author initials="T." surname="Narten" fullname="T. Narten">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date year="2017" month="June"/>
        </front>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RIFT" target="https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rift-rift-24.html">
        <front>
          <title>RIFT: Routing in Fat Trees</title>
          <seriesInfo name="Work in Progress" value="draft-ietf-rift-rift-24"/>
          <author initials="T." surname="Przygienda" fullname="Tony Przygienda">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author initials="J." surname="Head" fullname="Jordan Head">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author initials="A." surname="Sharma" fullname="Alankar Sharma">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author initials="P." surname="Thubert" fullname="Pascal Thubert">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author initials="B." surname="Rijsman" fullname="Bruno Rijsman">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author initials="D." surname="Afanasiev" fullname="Dmitry Afanasiev">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date month="May" year="2024"/>
        </front>
      </reference>
    </references>
    <references>
      <name>Informative References</name>
      <reference anchor="RIFT-AUTO-EVPN" target="https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rift-auto-evpn-05.html">
        <front>
          <title>RIFT Auto-EVPN</title>
          <seriesInfo name="Work in Progress," value="draft-ietf-rift-auto-evpn-05"/>
          <author initials="J." surname="Head" fullname="Jordan Head">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author initials="T." surname="Przygienda" fullname="Tony Przygienda">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author initials="W." surname="Lin" fullname="Wen Lin">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date month="February" year="2024"/>
        </front>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="THRIFT" target="https://github.com/apache/thrift/tree/0.15.0/doc">
        <front>
          <title>Thrift Language Implementation and Documentation</title>
          <author>
            <organization>Apache Software Foundation</organization>
          </author>
          <date/>
        </front>
      </reference>
    </references>
    <section anchor="app-additional-thrift" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Thrift Models</name>
      <t>This section contains the Thrift models that MAY be used to test 
      southbound Key-Value tie-breaking based on System ID. 
        Per the main <xref target="RIFT">RIFT</xref> specification, all signed 
        values MUST be interpreted as unsigned values.</t>
      <section anchor="app-rift-common-thrift-model">
        <name>southbound_kv.thrift</name>
        <figure title="RIFT Key-Value Store: southbound_kv.thrift">
          <name>RIFT Common Schema for Southbound Key-Value Tie-Break Key Sub-Type</name>
          <artset>
            <artwork align="left" type="ascii-art" originalSrc="art/southbound_kv.thrift.ascii-art">include "common.thrift"

namespace py southbound_kv
namespace rs models

const i8            GlobalSystemIdentifierKV  = 127

/** simple type to test correct tie-breaking based on system ID */
struct SystemIdentifierKV {
    1:  required   common.SystemIDType         system_id,
    2:  optional   common.LevelType            level,
}

</artwork>
          </artset>
        </figure>
      </section>
    </section>
  </back>
</rfc>
