Re: [auth48] [AD] [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <draft-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types-11> for your review

["Mishra, Sanjay" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rebecca - Thank you so much for the quick turnaround. BTW, only the pdf
link does not show the new changes but other links and xml file shows the
updates you made. Maybe the link to the pdf needs to be refreshed?

Thanks
Sanjay

On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 5:12 PM Rebecca VanRheenen <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Sanjay,
>
> Thanks for your reply! I updated the document title and the title of
> Figure 1. The updated files are listed below.
>
> Updated XML file:
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.xml&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=64pv06h1RFVaMjjEIgOCbOKctBImDTZ1WabFbOHBpebRfU4UlNX10Sxs0nDhb2oE&s=XYF5CpyIJS7Y4PafKrMaUEC07gRS1xgqK-2ZPjS-2_E&e=
>
> Updated output files:
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.txt&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=64pv06h1RFVaMjjEIgOCbOKctBImDTZ1WabFbOHBpebRfU4UlNX10Sxs0nDhb2oE&s=0qWgs0e-Hrji0O99XmK5yLtanMhyk4F_Dwj1jjAtRrI&e=
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=64pv06h1RFVaMjjEIgOCbOKctBImDTZ1WabFbOHBpebRfU4UlNX10Sxs0nDhb2oE&s=be485tSrWC2ny-4rGbjJ8GO1NIkCp2SS2qMT9csXYtg&e=
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=64pv06h1RFVaMjjEIgOCbOKctBImDTZ1WabFbOHBpebRfU4UlNX10Sxs0nDhb2oE&s=589ymaWGYBE0mFvzMUe9bz89UiCbXGgFYtDMp7OCIlU&e=
>
> Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Dauth48diff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=64pv06h1RFVaMjjEIgOCbOKctBImDTZ1WabFbOHBpebRfU4UlNX10Sxs0nDhb2oE&s=FY-sdfdJMvAeUaOVDZ0R_nffhXqm1dPbnFxnJsldTC0&e=
>
> Diff files showing all changes:
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Ddiff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=64pv06h1RFVaMjjEIgOCbOKctBImDTZ1WabFbOHBpebRfU4UlNX10Sxs0nDhb2oE&s=7xD7zo2zoZmrjXi_Ug2m-OzTDgc73SgEq14d0dHLEM0&e=
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Drfcdiff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=64pv06h1RFVaMjjEIgOCbOKctBImDTZ1WabFbOHBpebRfU4UlNX10Sxs0nDhb2oE&s=ZTzncWOXtM4pWewmyvy31mRe2oqUBg7J1sSOS0-jfjs&e=
> (side-by-side rfcdiff)
>
> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_auth48_rfc9388&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=64pv06h1RFVaMjjEIgOCbOKctBImDTZ1WabFbOHBpebRfU4UlNX10Sxs0nDhb2oE&s=NKfZ753inFmQxG-vYanZ2tA1cBTANjLQH2hd-4wTs6s&e=
>
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/rv
>
>
> > On Jul 7, 2023, at 12:42 PM, Mishra, Sanjay <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rebecca - Thank you for the updates and also finding a couple more
> instances where we did not add  country before subdivision. Please go-ahead
> and update both instances, to keep it consistent.
> >
> > you wrote:
> > The only instances of "subdivision code” not prefaced by “country” are
> in the document title and tile of Figure 1 (see below). Are these instances
> okay as is? Or should "Subdivision Code” be updated to “Country Subdivision
> Code”?
> >
> > Current:
> >     Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) Footprint Types:
> >                   Subdivision Code and Footprint Union
> >
> >      Figure 1: Illustration of Subdivision Code Footprint Advertisement
> >
> > [SM]: Yes, please update the title and the caption in Figure 1.
> >
> > After this question is addressed, we will wait for Murray’s approval. We
> will then request that IANA update the registry to match the edited
> document.
> > [SM]: ACK.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Sanjay
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 2:36 PM Rebecca VanRheenen <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > Hi Nir and Sanjay,
> >
> > We have noted your approvals on the AUTH48 status page for this document
> (see
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_auth48_rfc9388&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=BXB1rlBmF0aV-ERrKPFhyrRmJrVHQC7ruS2kbON1fu1lnWCa3gjj2UDjfi9FHyL9&s=eagG2WALHwQzlX7F0V6ldNS6nngds12CHCw7f_OA03A&e=
> ). Note that we have also addressed the issue in Section 2.1.1.1.
> >
> > The only instances of "subdivision code” not prefaced by “country” are
> in the document title and tile of Figure 1 (see below). Are these instances
> okay as is? Or should "Subdivision Code” be updated to “Country Subdivision
> Code”?
> >
> > Current:
> >     Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) Footprint Types:
> >                   Subdivision Code and Footprint Union
> >
> >      Figure 1: Illustration of Subdivision Code Footprint Advertisement
> >
> >
> > After this question is addressed, we will wait for Murray’s approval. We
> will then request that IANA update the registry to match the edited
> document.
> >
> >
> > Updated XML file:
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.xml&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=BXB1rlBmF0aV-ERrKPFhyrRmJrVHQC7ruS2kbON1fu1lnWCa3gjj2UDjfi9FHyL9&s=N6E-CxIER_BZDxpmqE_t9RG2VhrIk1PkGssdpbAs3VE&e=
> >
> > Updated output files:
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.txt&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=BXB1rlBmF0aV-ERrKPFhyrRmJrVHQC7ruS2kbON1fu1lnWCa3gjj2UDjfi9FHyL9&s=kjCmUzBrAFq1z-gRLwXjfUmjBcBsKNVSNRgzL7PeXCg&e=
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=BXB1rlBmF0aV-ERrKPFhyrRmJrVHQC7ruS2kbON1fu1lnWCa3gjj2UDjfi9FHyL9&s=IVxGDDKVWbs1g3C6wFvuqS6ISqIa0HVkhYPgk_r3F_Y&e=
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=BXB1rlBmF0aV-ERrKPFhyrRmJrVHQC7ruS2kbON1fu1lnWCa3gjj2UDjfi9FHyL9&s=8M9UOlRVnrZ9y2IcfaoyJ_r3JFfg3W6PtgGqwiZz6r8&e=
> >
> > Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Dauth48diff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=BXB1rlBmF0aV-ERrKPFhyrRmJrVHQC7ruS2kbON1fu1lnWCa3gjj2UDjfi9FHyL9&s=k0Sl7n32YQjH37N3KB9x55cSJwiN_7ZTmpZ1ADwWhXA&e=
> >
> > Diff files showing all changes:
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Ddiff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=BXB1rlBmF0aV-ERrKPFhyrRmJrVHQC7ruS2kbON1fu1lnWCa3gjj2UDjfi9FHyL9&s=9aySZ6JzuQGXPPERmjvah-WWiAcRevNlV_kTME1gzvE&e=
>
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Drfcdiff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=BXB1rlBmF0aV-ERrKPFhyrRmJrVHQC7ruS2kbON1fu1lnWCa3gjj2UDjfi9FHyL9&s=Aiwlihqely67tcgKVeyGMopfuvbD4ZtqBqOsTofZNek&e=
> (side-by-side rfcdiff)
> >
> > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_auth48_rfc9388&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=BXB1rlBmF0aV-ERrKPFhyrRmJrVHQC7ruS2kbON1fu1lnWCa3gjj2UDjfi9FHyL9&s=x86XWXIefdj6lwEveWdS5E6PWFAQPBXSSTSRLTKgxq0&e=
> >
> > Thank you,
> > RFC Editor/rv
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 5, 2023, at 8:59 PM, Nir Sopher <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Read the draft again and spotted another one...
> > > Section 2.1.1.1
> > > Old:
> > > Example subdivision codes
> > >
> > > New:
> > > Example country subdivision codes
> > >
> > > Other than that. Approved
> > >
> > > Thank you very much Rebecca for bearing with us on this entire process.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2023, 22:32 Mishra, Sanjay <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > > Hi Rebecca - Thank you for updating the links.
> > >
> > > I have reviewed all changes and everything looks good. You have
> updated based on the last set of open comments.
> > >
> > > I approve the document from my side.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Sanjay
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 3:51 PM Rebecca VanRheenen <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > > Hi Sanjay,
> > >
> > > Big apologies! The links should be correct now.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > RFC Editor/rv
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jul 5, 2023, at 12:47 PM, Mishra, Sanjay <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Rebecca - The attached links do not reflect the new edits we sent
> in the previous email. Can you please double check if you accepted those
> new edits from today?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Sanjay
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 2:50 PM Rebecca VanRheenen <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > Hi Sanjay, Nir, and Murray*,
> > > >
> > > > Sanjay and Nir, thank you for providing the additional edits. We
> have applied them all and posted updated files (see below). We did not make
> any changes regarding <aside> and consider that question closed per your
> response. Please review the updated files and let us know if you approve
> the document in its current form.
> > > >
> > > > *Murray, as AD, please review the latest changes in the abstract and
> let us know if you approve. You can view the changes in this diff file:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Dauth48diff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=6YjTPJMx6FaWzW3P4WN6X3l1nIqmgrk6ACobUKckVXL6asNjqJqvJATb4I9NBCFS&s=HL_k2FBc8HR_Rh4II2LfL6GTpggBvky-SmSIJ9e1iFI&e=
> > > >
> > > > Updated XML file:
> > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.xml&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=6YjTPJMx6FaWzW3P4WN6X3l1nIqmgrk6ACobUKckVXL6asNjqJqvJATb4I9NBCFS&s=oTQ4yplRHPOlkfhEUL7hyZu9Gv-rHuGuCI6aENGVUug&e=
> > > >
> > > > Updated output files:
> > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.txt&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=6YjTPJMx6FaWzW3P4WN6X3l1nIqmgrk6ACobUKckVXL6asNjqJqvJATb4I9NBCFS&s=x4I0YktiI_6vxXWk2iE1ibfg9f_FNcGg107QTVdtMFs&e=
> > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=6YjTPJMx6FaWzW3P4WN6X3l1nIqmgrk6ACobUKckVXL6asNjqJqvJATb4I9NBCFS&s=B0Ewa_w0GbezCQUNTdpXTNsiuIKiPmDZ8yEyvylzo1E&e=
> > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=6YjTPJMx6FaWzW3P4WN6X3l1nIqmgrk6ACobUKckVXL6asNjqJqvJATb4I9NBCFS&s=SzggdsRMRmrX4Jm3XkdaC8cxugjMS9ARuElvLeoPdnA&e=
> > > >
> > > > Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
> > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Dauth48diff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=6YjTPJMx6FaWzW3P4WN6X3l1nIqmgrk6ACobUKckVXL6asNjqJqvJATb4I9NBCFS&s=HL_k2FBc8HR_Rh4II2LfL6GTpggBvky-SmSIJ9e1iFI&e=
> > > >
> > > > Diff files showing all changes:
> > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Ddiff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=6YjTPJMx6FaWzW3P4WN6X3l1nIqmgrk6ACobUKckVXL6asNjqJqvJATb4I9NBCFS&s=ctNPEhMwSh9ZWk9yPcqzVplupYX0j8hdQb5b91RCn4Y&e=
>
> > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Drfcdiff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=6YjTPJMx6FaWzW3P4WN6X3l1nIqmgrk6ACobUKckVXL6asNjqJqvJATb4I9NBCFS&s=9PfHRCuN3dmtcwcshEC9lQwZVyGSm3tR63ODkJIDOsQ&e=
> (side-by-side rfcdiff)
> > > >
> > > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_auth48_rfc9388&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=6YjTPJMx6FaWzW3P4WN6X3l1nIqmgrk6ACobUKckVXL6asNjqJqvJATb4I9NBCFS&s=gmcajv2nUCihGx0yqyK69mUW4bCDAR-P_6czkkjV_v0&e=
> > > >
> > > > Thank you,
> > > > RFC Editor/rv
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Jul 5, 2023, at 9:10 AM, Mishra, Sanjay <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Rebecca - Thank you for the current edits. Please see our
> response below.
> > > > >
> > > > > With regards to the "aside" container. We did not find any need
> for it in the document.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, while scanning the document, we found a few additional
> edits:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Abstract: (adding "for delegation" after "granularity to better
> explain the context)
> > > > > OLD:
> > > > > Defining this country subdivision code improves granularity as
> compared to the
> > > > > ISO 3166-1 country code footprint type defined in RFC 8006.
> > > > >
> > > > > NEW (changes marked in bold for visual identification):
> > > > > Defining this country subdivision code improves granularity for
> delegation
> > > > >  as compared to the
> > > > > ISO 3166-1 country code footprint type defined in RFC 8006.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Abstract: (Remove "this" and join it with the prior sentence
> for ease of flow of the sentence. text bolded for identification)
> > > > > OLD:
> > > > > The second footprint type defines a footprint union to aggregate
> footprint objects. This allows for an additive semantics over the narrowing
> semantics defined in Appendix B of RFC 8008. This updates RFC 8008.
> > > > >
> > > > > New:
> > > > > The second footprint type defines a footprint union to aggregate
> footprint objects. This allows for an additive semantics over the narrowing
> semantics defined in Appendix B of RFC 8008, and therefore updates RFC 8008.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. Section 2.2 - a very long sentence that may be broken into 2
> parts. Changes are shown in BOLD for identification of the new text
> > > > > OLD:
> > > > > Using footprint objects of these types, one can define FCI
> Capability Advertisement object footprint constraints that match either
> IPv4 or IPv6 clients, but not both due to the described "narrowing"
> semantic of the Footprint Objects array, as described in Appendix B of that
> prevents the usage of these objects together to create a footprint
> constraint that matches IPv4 clients with IPv6 clients.
> > > > >
> > > > > New:
> > > > > Using footprint objects of these types, one can define FCI
> Capability Advertisement object footprint constraints that match either
> IPv4 or IPv6 clients, but not both. This is due to the described
> "narrowing" semantic of the Footprint Objects array, as described in
> Appendix B of RFC 8008 that prevents the usage of these objects together to
> create a footprint constraint that matches IPv4 clients with IPv6 clients.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. Section 1 Introduction (first bullet). Adding "Country" before
> subdivision code. Text is bolded for identification.
> > > > > OLD:
> > > > > Subdivision code footprint type (e.g., for a dCDN advertising a
> footprint that is specific to a state in the United States of America)
> > > > >
> > > > > NEW:
> > > > > Country subdivision code footprint type (e.g., for a dCDN
> advertising a footprint that is specific to a state in the United States of
> America)
> > > > >
> > > > > 5. Section 2.2 - a typo (missing "i" and a space. also adding
> "country" ahead of subdivision code)
> > > > > OLD:
> > > > > for example, an IPv4 CIDR together with an IPv6 CIDR or a country
> code together with a subdivisoncode
> > > > >
> > > > > NEW:
> > > > > for example, an IPv4 CIDR together with an IPv6 CIDR or a country
> code together with a country subdivision code
> > > > >
> > > > > 6. Section 2.2.2 - We don't think "the" is needed in this sentence
> (as below) and also adding "country" in front of "subdivision code".
> > > > > OLD:
> > > > > The footprint union also enables the
> > > > >  composing of footprint objects
> > > > > based on the
> > > > > country code and  subdivision code.
> > > > >   In Figure 4, we
> > > > > create a constraint covering autonomous system 64496 within the USA
> > > > >
> > > > > NEW:
> > > > > The footprint union also enables
> > > > > composing of footprint objects
> > > > > based on the country code and
> > > > > country subdivision code.
> > > > >   In Figure 4, we
> > > > > create a constraint covering autonomous system 64496 within the USA
> > > > >
> > > > > 7. Section 3.1.3 (adding "country" in front of the subdivision
> codes.)
> > > > > OLD:
> > > > > There is no hierarchy or inheritance for properties associated
> with subdivision codes.
> > > > > New:
> > > > > There is no hierarchy or inheritance for properties associated
> with country subdivision codes.
> > > > > Thank you very much.
> > > > > Nir and Sanjay
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 1:21 PM Rebecca VanRheenen <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > > Hi Nir,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for addressing theses questions. We have updated the
> document accordingly and added the keywords you provided to our database.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding this:
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > 11) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in
> this document
> > > > > >>>> > should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a
> container for
> > > > > >>>> > content that is semantically less important or tangential
> to the
> > > > > >>>> > content that surrounds it" (
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__authors.ietf.org_en_rfcxml-2Dvocabulary-23aside&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=aNcD_pgXb5qjTllxyCe5MJQgRTzMv518ReluUd8bmm0&e=
> ).
> > > > > >>>> > -->
> > > > > >>>> > [NS] I do not fully understand the point here.
> > > > > >>>> > Will try to read more about it, but if you can give more
> details/an example it would greatly assist me.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> [rfced]  You may find more info at
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__authors.ietf.org_rfcxml-2Dvocabulary-23aside&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=1M4B3QCqA-VdOlGvuDQx_ARDiekvCjXUnsFEl3YM6OM&e=
> .
> > > > > >> [NS] I'm not familiar with this concept but do not think we
> have a need for such a change.
> > > > > > Can you please share an example for a document where it had been
> in use?
> > > > >
> > > > > You can view examples in RFCs 9396 and 9393. Search for “Note:” in
> the output files to see how these are formatted.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is our final question. After it is addressed, we will ask
> Murray to approve the latest changes in the abstract and then request that
> IANA update the registry to match the edited document.
> > > > >
> > > > > Updated XML file:
> > > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.xml&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=rnI8C1TMJM7slUpITW4U5Vdm5ztUEavWyIDN1E3AAfM&e=
> > > > >
> > > > > Updated output files:
> > > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.txt&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=IieWbMjKlQyOjbotwBn4pWyKdVhg6OHEvOZ_92Fxpac&e=
> > > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=OsOtC3a1iG3EgG5MI90EvAiIm5JQfFFZTLCCfOi2FjU&e=
> > > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=5RUZa-waUbT9MLHL6Uk72KiqqboJpZRPGtNhb1I_XhM&e=
> > > > >
> > > > > Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
> > > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Dauth48diff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=UKF29gl7ddwUQLv3EBUGmwRVHlWi-Pb4MFMgVeu08GA&e=
> > > > >
> > > > > Diff files showing all changes:
> > > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Ddiff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=hyrRs85zhPo4vN4YB01d1PryXreU2Y-TFs1wADaivqE&e=
>
> > > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Drfcdiff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=SQiCq6D5pEFep56sVnJKK7eYV2HQh5AOE40pMme0PDg&e=
> (side-by-side rfcdiff)
> > > > >
> > > > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> > > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_auth48_rfc9388&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=YlgKeXnxnaQB9jBO1Qvz99OclaLDY4kdfWGy0i_IFEw&e=
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you,
> > > > > RFC Editor/rv
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Jun 29, 2023, at 6:28 AM, Nir Sopher <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you Rebecca,
> > > > > > See comments below.
> > > > > > Many thanks,
> > > > > > Nir
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------
> > > > > > WRT the abstract. Indeed a "a" or "this is missing. Let's go for
> adding a "this", we were also missing the "country" token
> > > > > > OLD: Defining subdivision code
> > > > > > NEW: Defining this country subdivision code
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -------
> > > > > > Now, for the additional comments:
> > > > > > [rfced] If there are any keywords you think readers might want
> to search when they look for documents on this topic, and the words are not
> already in the title, we can add them to our database.
> > > > > > [NS/SM] We would add:
> > > > > > - Request Routing
> > > > > > - Footprint and Capabilities Semantics
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -------
> > > > > > [rfced] Please review our updates to ensure that this reference
> now appears as desired.
> > > > > > [NS/SM] Reviewed. Great :)
> > > > > > -------
> > > > > > > 8) ...[rfced] We made these updates based on
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__author-2Dtools.ietf.org_iddiff-3Furl1-3Ddraft-2Dietf-2Dcdni-2Dadditional-2Dfootprint-2Dtypes-2D11-26url2-3Ddraft-2Dietf-2Dcdni-2Dadditional-2Dfootprint-2Dtypes-2D12-26difftype-3D-2D-2Dhwdiff&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=Z1AcNQijBUwEzbxLmx0zS3S9_ix4Q4-tcdsIllVGvSc&e=
> > > > > > [rfced] We have updated the examples below as suggested.  Please
> let us know if any further occurrences of “match” need changes.
> > > > > > [NS/SM] Approved
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -------
> > > > > > > 11) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in
> this document
> > > > > > > should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a
> container for
> > > > > > > content that is semantically less important or tangential to
> the
> > > > > > > content that surrounds it" (
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__authors.ietf.org_en_rfcxml-2Dvocabulary-23aside&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=aNcD_pgXb5qjTllxyCe5MJQgRTzMv518ReluUd8bmm0&e=
> ).
> > > > > > > -->
> > > > > > > [NS] I do not fully understand the point here.
> > > > > > > Will try to read more about it, but if you can give more
> details/an example it would greatly assist me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -------
> > > > > > [rfced]  You may find more info at
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__authors.ietf.org_rfcxml-2Dvocabulary-23aside&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=1M4B3QCqA-VdOlGvuDQx_ARDiekvCjXUnsFEl3YM6OM&e=
> .
> > > > > > [NS] I'm not familiar with this concept but do not think we have
> a need for such a change.
> > > > > > Can you please share an example for a document where it had been
> in use?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -------
> > > > > > > 12) ...
> > > > > > [rfced] Sounds like this issue has been reviewed.
> > > > > > [NS/SM] Correct
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 9:56 PM Rebecca VanRheenen <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Nir and Sanjay,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for your replies! We have updated the abstract and
> Section 2.2 as suggested by Nir. The updated files are listed below.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We have one question about the abstract: should “Defining
> subdivision code” be updated to "Defining a subdivision code” (with “a”),
> "Defining this subdivision code” (with “this”), or something similar?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Current:
> > > > > >   Defining subdivision code improves granularity as compared to
> the ISO3166-1
> > > > > >   country code footprint type, defined in RFC 8006.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, Megan sent the following followup questions/comments on 22
> June 2023. (I’ll be the point of contact going forward as Megan is out of
> the office.) Once these and the question above about the abstract are
> addressed, we will mark your approvals.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Note that once the sentence in the abstract is finalized, we
> will ask Murray to approve the abstract as some text was added (we consider
> added text to be “above editorial”, thus requiring AD approval). In
> addition, some changes were made to the description column in Section 4.1,
> which affects the IANA registry. After we receive all approvals, we will
> ask IANA to update the registry to match the edited document (see details
> in the note on the AUTH48 status page at
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_auth48_rfc9388&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=VQjmYPucQGmeTZrxHx4YLSjD_AjjHaAC3RCCHQKTf_g&e=
> ).
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that
> appear in the title) for use on
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=H-DXaaooMlmFo5W3UAuSjRt_Fy-dd-mEaPEILis6hkE&e=
> .
> > > > > > > org/search. -->
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [SM/NS]
> > > > > > > Can you please clarify?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [rfced] If there are any keywords you think readers might want
> to search when they look for documents on this topic, and the words are not
> already in the title, we can add them to our database.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 6) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions about text in
> the Table in
> > > > > > >     Section 4.1.  Note that we will communicate any necessary
> changes
> > > > > > >     to IANA upon completion of AUTH48.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > a) What does "hyphen-minus" mean?  Is this trying to
> communicate that
> > > > > > > some people might call it a hyphen and some might say minus
> sign?  Or
> > > > > > > something else?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [SM/NS]
> > > > > > > We can drop the "-minus" and leave only the "hyphen".
> > > > > > > Note that we took the "hyphen-minus" terminology for the
> actual ISO defining the country subdivision values:
> > > > > > > See
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.iso.org_obp_ui_-23iso-3Astd-3Aiso-3A3166-3A-2D2-3Aed-2D4-3Av1-3Aen&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=gGyH0z2JR4_54vqv0BBl6b5AL58HCWllGcPr3Cs9-7E&e=
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > b) Is this spacing correct?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Original:
> > > > > > > Characters from A-Z;0-9
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Perhaps:
> > > > > > > Characters from A-Z and 0-9
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -->
> > > > > > > [SM/NS]
> > > > > > > For the ease of reading we agree with your suggestion.
> > > > > > > Yet again, this was copied from the ISO defining the values
> structure
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [rfced] We have left both of the above as they were.  Thank you
> for providing background on these choices.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 7) <!-- [rfced] For reference [OC-RR], the provided URL points
> to a page
> > > > > > >     that shows the document being both Version 2.0 and 2.1.
> Which
> > > > > > >     version is correct?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, the provided URL shows two more contributors: Thomas
> Edwards and
> > > > > > > Yoav Gressel. Would you like these to be added to the
> reference as
> > > > > > > authors?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Original:
> > > > > > >   [OC-RR]    Finkelman, O., Ed., Hofmann, J., Klein, E.,
> Mishra, S.,
> > > > > > >              Ma, K., Sahar, D., and B. Zurat, "Open Caching -
> Request
> > > > > > >              Routing Functional Specification", Version 2.0,
> 15 January
> > > > > > >              2021, <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.svta.org_product_open-2Dcache-2Drequest-2D&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=WhHa9lNnA0TysADGsuVn07x3jcJhEwjEINW6NhaL9FY&e=
> > > > > > >              routing-functional-specification/>.
> > > > > > > Perhaps:
> > > > > > >   [OC-RR]    Finkelman, O., Ed., Zurat, B., Sahar, D., Klein,
> E.,
> > > > > > >              Hofmann, J., Ma, K.J., Stock, M., Mishra, S.,
> Edwards, T.,
> > > > > > >              and Y. Yoav, "Open Caching - Request Routing
> Functional
> > > > > > >              Specification", Version 2.0, 15 January 2021,
> > > > > > >              <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.svta.org_product_open-2Dcache-2Drequest-2Drouting-2D&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=Fae8JNp_La87atc_-iT7-guUyp6yGpEQYdMzUNiBcdY&e=
> > > > > > >              functional-specification/>.
> > > > > > > -->
> > > > > > > [SM/NS]
> > > > > > > We will stick to version 2.0
> > > > > > > We are working to get the OC-RR webpage updated to reflect
> version 2.0.
> > > > > > > We would also push forward adding Thomas Edwards to the
> authors list (Yoav is already listed in the document).
> > > > > > > Please note that in the proposal Yoav was added as "Y. Yoav"
> instead of "G. Yoav" or to be consistent "Gressel, Y.”
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [rfced] Please review our updates to ensure that this reference
> now appears as desired.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 8) <!-- [rfced] Terminology: Throughout the document, we
> spotted the
> > > > > > >     following issues related to terminology.  Please review
> each
> > > > > > >     question below and let us know how to update, using
> old/new where
> > > > > > >     necessary.  Note that you are welcome to update the xml
> file
> > > > > > >     itself if that is easier than explaining the changes via
> email.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [rfced] We made these updates based on
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__author-2Dtools.ietf.org_iddiff-3Furl1-3Ddraft-2Dietf-2Dcdni-2Dadditional-2Dfootprint-2Dtypes-2D11-26url2-3Ddraft-2Dietf-2Dcdni-2Dadditional-2Dfootprint-2Dtypes-2D12-26difftype-3D-2D-2Dhwdiff&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=Z1AcNQijBUwEzbxLmx0zS3S9_ix4Q4-tcdsIllVGvSc&e=
> .
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1) Please review the way that the following terms appear
> throughout the document
> > > > > > > with regard to capitalization, hyphenation, quotation,
> spacing, phrasing, etc. and let us know
> > > > > > > if/how we may make these terms consistent:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > a) object vs. Object
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > CDNI Footprint object vs. CNDI Footprint Object
> > > > > > > Footprint Objects vs. Footprint objects vs. footprint objects
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (Note that RFC 8006 uses Footprint object)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [SM/NS] we changed all instances to lower case "object"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > b) Footprint, Footprint Types, Footprint Values, Footprint
> Union
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > footprint (as a general noun)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Footprint Types vs. footprint-type vs. footprint types vs.
> "footprint-type"
> > > > > > > -See also "Country Code" footprint type and "IPv4CIDR" and
> "IPv6CIDR" footprint types.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Footprint-value vs. footprint value
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Union Footprint type
> > > > > > > "Footprintunion" footprint type
> > > > > > > "Footprintunion" object
> > > > > > > Footprint object of type "footprint union"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [SM/NS] We are comparing the draft with previous RFCs and
> trying to come up wit a consistent scheme for different use cases
> > > > > > > 1) "Footprint Type": "type" should  be in lower case unless it
> is part of the section header
> > > > > > > 2)  "footprint-type": the dash is OK when it is part of an
> anchor or when it stand for the property name (in the different examples)
> > > > > > > 3) "Footprint Union": should be capitalized
> > > > > > > 4) "footprintunion" should be used in some cases - we are
> trying to understand where
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > c) Subdivision
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Subdivision Code Footprint Type
> > > > > > > a footprint object of type "subdivisioncode"
> > > > > > > SUBDIVISION Domain (and SUBDIVISION domain)
> > > > > > > country Subdivision code vs. Country Subdivision codes
> > > > > > > subdivisioncode vs. subdivision code
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [SM/NS] this case is similar to the "Footprint Union" case. We
> will work on it and would update
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2) For the following terms, would you like to match their use
> in past
> > > > > > > RFCs, specifically RFC 8006?  Please review the various styles
> that
> > > > > > > appear in the document currently and our suggested updates to
> > > > > > > make those forms consistent throughout the document and with
> RFC 8006.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Current:
> > > > > > > Country Code vs. countrycode vs. country code
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Perhaps:
> > > > > > >   countrycode
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Current:
> > > > > > >   ipv4cidr vs. IPv4CIDR
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Perhaps:
> > > > > > >   ipv4cidr
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Current:
> > > > > > >   ipv6cidr vs. IPv6CIDR
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Perhaps:
> > > > > > >   ipv6cidr
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -->
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [SM/NS] This is again the "footprint union" vs.
> "footprintunion" issue. We will find a consistent usage
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 9) <!--[rfced]Please review the uses of the word "match"
> throughout the document.
> > > > > > > In some places, it is not clear that the constraint does not
> have to
> > > > > > > match both patterns given.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [rfced] We have updated the examples below as suggested.  Please
> let us know if any further occurrences of “match” need changes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Examples with some possible updates to help the reader.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Original:
> > > > > > > The Footprint Object in this example creates a
> > > > > > > constraint matching clients in the states of New Jersey and
> New York,
> > > > > > > USA (ISO [ISO3166-2] codes "US-NJ" and "US-NY", respectively).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Perhaps:
> > > > > > > The Footprint Object in this example creates a
> > > > > > > constraint that matches clients in the state of either New
> Jersey or New York,
> > > > > > > (ISO [ISO3166-2] codes "US-NJ" and "US-NY", respectively).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [SM/NS]  Agreed
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Original:
> > > > > > > Using Footprint Objects of these types, one can define FCI
> Capability
> > > > > > > Advertisement Object footprint constraints that match IPv4 or
> IPv6
> > > > > > > clients.  However, the described "narrowing" semantic of the
> Footprint
> > > > > > > Objects array, as described in Appendix B of [RFC8008],
> prevents the
> > > > > > > usage of these objects together to create a footprint
> constraint that
> > > > > > > matches IPv4 clients together with IPv6 clients.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Perhaps (adding "either...but not both", cutting "together",
> and
> > > > > > > combining the sentences):
> > > > > > > Using Footprint Objects of these types, one can
> > > > > > > define FCI Capability Advertisement Object footprint
> constraints that
> > > > > > > match either IPv4 or IPv6 clients, but not both, due to the
> described
> > > > > > > "narrowing" semantic of the Footprint Objects
> > > > > > > array (Appendix B of [RFC8008]) that prevents the usage of
> > > > > > > these objects together to create a footprint constraint that
> matches
> > > > > > > IPv4 clients with IPv6 clients.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [SM/NS] Agreed
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Original:
> > > > > > > Below is an example for an attempt at creating an object
> matching
> > > > > > > IPv4 clients of subnet "192.0.2.0/24", as well as IPv6
> clients of
> > > > > > > subnet "2001:db8::/32".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Perhaps:
> > > > > > > Below is an example attempting to create an object that matches
> > > > > > > IPv4 clients of subnet "192.0.2.0/24" as well as IPv6 clients
> of
> > > > > > > subnet "2001:db8::/32".
> > > > > > > -->
> > > > > > > [SM/NS] Agreed
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 10) <!--[rfced] Please review the following with regard to ISO
> citations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > a) Is ISO 3166-2 the name of the code?  If not, perhaps the
> following
> > > > > > > change would be helpful to the reader.  Note that there may be
> more
> > > > > > > occurences, please review all as this is simply an example.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Original:
> > > > > > >   The "subdivisioncode" data type specified in Section 2.1.1.1
> > > > > > >   describes a country-specific subdivision using an
> [ISO3166-2] code.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Perhaps:
> > > > > > >   The "subdivisioncode" data type specified in Section 2.1.1.1
> > > > > > >   describes a country-specific subdivision using a code
> described in
> > > > > > >   [ISO3166-2].
> > > > > > > [SM/NS]
> > > > > > > Maybe:
> > > > > > > The "subdivisioncode" data type specified in Section 2.1.1.1
> > > > > > >   describes a country-specific subdivision using a code as
> defined in
> > > > > > >   [ISO3166-2].
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [rfced] Thank you for this guidance. Please review other similar
> instances throughout the doc and let us know if/how they may be updated
> using old/new text.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 11) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in
> this document
> > > > > > > should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a
> container for
> > > > > > > content that is semantically less important or tangential to
> the
> > > > > > > content that surrounds it" (
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__authors.ietf.org_en_rfcxml-2Dvocabulary-23aside&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=aNcD_pgXb5qjTllxyCe5MJQgRTzMv518ReluUd8bmm0&e=
> ).
> > > > > > > -->
> > > > > > > [NS] I do not fully understand the point here.
> > > > > > > Will try to read more about it, but if you can give more
> details/an example it would greatly assist me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [rfced]  You may find more info at
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__authors.ietf.org_rfcxml-2Dvocabulary-23aside&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=1M4B3QCqA-VdOlGvuDQx_ARDiekvCjXUnsFEl3YM6OM&e=
> .
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ______________
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Updated XML file:
> > > > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.xml&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=rnI8C1TMJM7slUpITW4U5Vdm5ztUEavWyIDN1E3AAfM&e=
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Updated output files:
> > > > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.txt&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=IieWbMjKlQyOjbotwBn4pWyKdVhg6OHEvOZ_92Fxpac&e=
> > > > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=OsOtC3a1iG3EgG5MI90EvAiIm5JQfFFZTLCCfOi2FjU&e=
> > > > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=5RUZa-waUbT9MLHL6Uk72KiqqboJpZRPGtNhb1I_XhM&e=
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
> > > > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Dauth48diff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=UKF29gl7ddwUQLv3EBUGmwRVHlWi-Pb4MFMgVeu08GA&e=
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Diff files showing all changes:
> > > > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Ddiff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=hyrRs85zhPo4vN4YB01d1PryXreU2Y-TFs1wADaivqE&e=
>
> > > > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Drfcdiff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=SQiCq6D5pEFep56sVnJKK7eYV2HQh5AOE40pMme0PDg&e=
> (side-by-side rfcdiff)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> > > > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_auth48_rfc9388&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=YlgKeXnxnaQB9jBO1Qvz99OclaLDY4kdfWGy0i_IFEw&e=
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you,
> > > > > > RFC Editor/rv
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Jun 27, 2023, at 10:48 PM, Nir Sopher <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Megan,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All the changes look great. Thank you.  That said, we do have
> two-more changes (sorry).  The first change is the reworded Abstract. We
> feel this will make it easier for the reader to follow the work done in
> this document (the original wording can be hard to follow). You may find
> grammatical nits here but otherwise the abstract is contextually the same
> as the current version.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Second change is a slight correction in paragraph 2.2.
> This we think should be our final changes. Following are the changes
> proposed:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Abstract:
> > > > > > > NEW:
> > > > > > > Open Caching architecture is a use case of Content Delivery
> Network Interconnection (CDNI) in which the commercial Content Delivery
> Network (CDN) is the upstream CDN (uCDN) and the ISP caching layer serves
> as the downstream CDN (dCDN). RFC 8006 defines footprint types which are
> used for footprint objects as part of the Metadata interface (MI). The
> footprint types are also used for the Footprint & Capabilities
> Advertisement interface (FCI) as defined in RFC 8008. This document defines
> two new footprint types, the first footprint type defined is an ISO3166-2
> country subdivision code. Defining subdivision code improves granularity as
> compared to the ISO3166-1 country code footprint type, defined in RFC
> 8006.  The ISO3166-2 country subdivision code is also added as a new entity
> domain type in the "ALTO Entity Domain Types" subregistry as defined in
> Section 7.4 of RFC 9241. The second footprint type defines a footprint
> union to aggregate footprint objects. This allows for an additive semantics
> over the narrowing semantics defined in Appendix B of RFC 8008. This
> updates RFC 8008. The two new footprint types are based on the requirements
> raised by Open Caching, but are also applicable to CDNI use cases in
> general.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Section 2.2
> > > > > > > The second paragraph starts with:
> > > > > > > OLD:
> > > > > > > Sections 4.3.5 and 4.3.6 of [RFC8006] specify the IPv4 CIDR
> and the IPv6 CIDR footprint types
> > > > > > > Where it should be changed to:
> > > > > > > NEW:
> > > > > > > Sections 4.3.5 and 4.3.6 of [RFC8006] specify the "ipv4cidr"
> and the "ipv6cidr" footprint types
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > After these changes, the document is approved by both of us.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > Sanjay & Nir
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 7:04 PM Nir Sopher <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > > > > Thanks for pushing it forward,
> > > > > > > Will further review at the beginning of next week.
> > > > > > > Have a nice weekend.
> > > > > > > Nir
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 12:28 AM Megan Ferguson <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sanjay and Nir (and *ADs),
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [*ADs - please review and approve the author-submitted changes
> to our question #1 below.]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you for your replies.  We have updated the document
> based on your comments below.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please also note that we have incorporated some responses
> marked with [rfced] in the mail below (items closed out have been snipped).
> Please let us know if we can be of further assistance with any of the
> outstanding issues.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   The files have been posted here:
> > > > > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.txt&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=IieWbMjKlQyOjbotwBn4pWyKdVhg6OHEvOZ_92Fxpac&e=
> > > > > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=OsOtC3a1iG3EgG5MI90EvAiIm5JQfFFZTLCCfOi2FjU&e=
> > > > > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=5RUZa-waUbT9MLHL6Uk72KiqqboJpZRPGtNhb1I_XhM&e=
> > > > > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.xml&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=rnI8C1TMJM7slUpITW4U5Vdm5ztUEavWyIDN1E3AAfM&e=
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   The relevant diff files have been posted here:
> > > > > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Ddiff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=hyrRs85zhPo4vN4YB01d1PryXreU2Y-TFs1wADaivqE&e=
> (comprehensive diff)
> > > > > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Drfcdiff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=SQiCq6D5pEFep56sVnJKK7eYV2HQh5AOE40pMme0PDg&e=
> (comprehensive rfcdiff)
> > > > > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Dauth48diff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=UKF29gl7ddwUQLv3EBUGmwRVHlWi-Pb4MFMgVeu08GA&e=
> (AUTH48 changes only)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   The AUTH48 status page is viewable here:
> > > > > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_auth48_rfc9388&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=YlgKeXnxnaQB9jBO1Qvz99OclaLDY4kdfWGy0i_IFEw&e=
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > RFC Editor/mf
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Jun 16, 2023, at 9:26 AM, Mishra, Sanjay <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hello there is a slight update from our last response RE
> the  [OC-RR].
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The webpage administrator confirms the version is 2.0
> (already confirmed) but that Thomas Edwards name in the webpage was
> erroneously listed as one of the co-authors. The SVTA administrator will
> update the document webpage to reflect the document version as 2.0 and
> remove Thomas Edwards. Yoav Gressel as co-author is listed on the webpage
> and also in the document.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > Sanjay and Nir
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 4:09 PM Nir Sopher <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > And thank you very much for the comments.
> > > > > > > > See responses inline.
> > > > > > > > WRT item #8, #9, #12 we will do our best to prepare a new
> XML with the proper changes by the beginning of next week.
> > > > > > > > Many thanks,
> > > > > > > > Nir
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 6:22 AM <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Authors and *AD,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve
> (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1) <!--[rfced] *AD - Should RFC 9241 be added to this
> document's header as being updated by this document?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We see the following in the Abstract:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "This document also supplements RFC 9241 with relevant ALTO
> entity
> > > > > > > > domain types."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And in the document announcement message (see
> > > > > > > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dcdni-2Dadditional-2Dfootprint-2Dtypes_writeup_&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=EAl7D2D-HAbXpNeMnyvElnb0BM62XGZaAoG7mfZEveo&e=
> ):
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "The document also updates RFC 9241 with relevant ALTO entity
> > > > > > > > domain types."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The current header only indicates RFC 8008 as being updated
> by this document.
> > > > > > > > Please advise.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -->
> > > > > > > > [NS/SM]
> > > > > > > > We think it would be best to change the wording a bit:
> > > > > > > > Original:
> > > > > > > > This document also supplements RFC 9241 with relevant ALTO
> entity domain types.
> > > > > > > > Suggested:
> > > > > > > > Furthermore, this document defines a new entity domain type
> registered in the ALTO Entity Domain Types Registry, as defined in section
> 7.4 of RFC 9241.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [rfced] *AD - please confirm that the updates to the text of
> the Abstract are the correct action here.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those
> that appear in the title) for use on
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=H-DXaaooMlmFo5W3UAuSjRt_Fy-dd-mEaPEILis6hkE&e=
> .
> > > > > > > > org/search. -->
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [SM/NS]
> > > > > > > > Can you please clarify?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [rfced] If there are any keywords you think readers might want
> to search when they look for documents on this topic, and the words are not
> already in the title, we can add them to our database.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 6) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions about text in
> the Table in
> > > > > > > >      Section 4.1.  Note that we will communicate any
> necessary changes
> > > > > > > >      to IANA upon completion of AUTH48.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > a) What does "hyphen-minus" mean?  Is this trying to
> communicate that
> > > > > > > > some people might call it a hyphen and som
> >
>
>