Re: [auth48] [IANA #1276431] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <draft-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types-11> for your review

[Rebecca VanRheenen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Nir and Sanjay,

IANA has updated the registry to match the edited document. We will begin to prepare the document for publication at this time.

Thank you again for your time and attention during the AUTH48 process!

Sincerely,
RFC Editor/rv



> On Jul 13, 2023, at 5:05 PM, Amanda Baber via RT <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> These changes are complete:
> 
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/cdni-parameters
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Amanda Baber
> IANA Operations Manager
> 
> On Wed Jul 12 21:04:57 2023, [e-mail] wrote:
>> IANA,
>> 
>> Please update the "CDNI Metadata Footprint Types” registry as follows.
>> Here is the direct link to the registry:
>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/cdni-parameters/cdni-
>> parameters.xhtml#metadata-footprint-types.
>> 
>> OLD:
>>    ISO 3166-2 country subdivision code: alpha-2 country code,
>> followed by a hyphen-minus,
>>   and up to 3 characters from A-Z;0-9 as a code within the country.
>> 
>> NEW (remove comma and period):
>>    ISO 3166-2 country subdivision code: alpha-2 country code,
>> followed by a hyphen-minus
>>   and up to 3 characters from A-Z;0-9 as a code within the country
>> 
>> OLD (lowercase "footprint objects”):
>>   A combination of other Footprint Objects
>> 
>> NEW:
>>   A combination of other footprint objects
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> RFC Editor/rv
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 12, 2023, at 2:02 PM, Rebecca VanRheenen
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Murray, Sanjay, and Nir,
>>> 
>>> We have updated to the shorter version (corrected version that
>>> removes “an”) recommended by Murray. The updated files are listed
>>> below; note that you may need to refresh.
>>> 
>>> All questions have now been addressed, and we now have all approvals.
>>> In a separate email, we will request that IANA update the registry to
>>> match the approved document. We will then begin to prepare the
>>> document for publication.
>>> 
>>> Thank you all for your time, patience, and help during the AUTH48
>>> process for this document!
>>> 
>>> Updated XML file:
>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388.xml
>>> 
>>> Updated output files:
>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388.txt
>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388.pdf
>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388.html
>>> 
>>> Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388-auth48diff.html
>>> 
>>> Diff files showing all changes:
>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388-diff.html
>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388-rfcdiff.html (side-by-
>>> side rfcdiff)
>>> 
>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>>>  http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9388
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> RFC Editor/rv
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 8:45 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy
>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I prefer the more terse text.  Since Sanjay indicated he can live
>>>> with it, let's proceed that way.  So that's Rebecca's proposed
>>>> correction that removes "an" only.
>>>> 
>>>> -MSK, ART AD
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 11:18 AM Mishra, Sanjay
>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> Rebecca - While Murray is considering the new Abstract text, we have
>>>> one more suggestion to the proposed text. We could also not use
>>>> "removes" in the text and instead use "relaxes" for example, the NEW
>>>> abstract will read as follows:
>>>> 
>>>> Current:
>>>>  This allows for an
>>>>  additive semantics over the narrowing semantics defined in
>>>> Appendix B
>>>>  of RFC 8008 and therefore updates RFC 8008.
>>>> 
>>>> Revised:
>>>>  This new footprint union removes relaxes the narrowing constraint
>>>> of RFC 8008, where
>>>>  Appendix B states the following: "Multiple footprint constraints
>>>> are additive: the
>>>>  advertisement of different footprint types narrows the dCDN's
>>>> candidacy cumulatively.”
>>>>  This document defines  a footprint union that allows aggregation
>>>> of footprint objects and
>>>>  thus avoids the narrowing semantics defined in RFC 8008. As a
>>>> result, this change also
>>>>  updates RFC 8008.
>>>> 
>>>> Or we can leave as-is and just remove "an" from the abstract as
>>>> Murray pointed to.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Sanjay
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 1:35 PM Rebecca VanRheenen
>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> Hi Murray* and Sanjay,
>>>> 
>>>> Murray, we believe that you are suggesting cutting “an” from the
>>>> current sentence in the abstract (though let us know if there is
>>>> anything else in that sentence that you’d like to improve). Sanjay
>>>> has also suggested extending this text further. Which update is
>>>> preferred? Please discuss and let us know how to update the
>>>> document.
>>>> 
>>>> *Murray, if Sanjay’s new text is preferred, please let us know if
>>>> you approve it (we consider this update “above editorial” as it adds
>>>> new text).
>>>> 
>>>> Current:
>>>>  This allows for an
>>>>  additive semantics over the narrowing semantics defined in
>>>> Appendix B
>>>>    of RFC 8008 and therefore updates RFC 8008.
>>>> 
>>>> Perhaps (remove “an”)
>>>> This allows for
>>>>  additive semantics over the narrowing semantics defined in
>>>> Appendix B
>>>>    of RFC 8008 and therefore updates RFC 8008.
>>>> 
>>>> Or (Sanjay’s suggested text, with some minor edits):
>>>>   This new footprint union removes the narrowing constraint of RFC
>>>> 8008, where
>>>>  Appendix B states the following: "Multiple footprint constraints
>>>> are additive: the
>>>>   advertisement of different footprint types narrows the dCDN's
>>>> candidacy cumulatively.”
>>>>   This document defines  a footprint union that allows aggregation
>>>> of footprint objects and
>>>>   thus avoids the narrowing semantics defined in RFC 8008. As a
>>>> result, this change also
>>>>   updates RFC 8008.
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> RFC Editor/rv
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 8, 2023, at 3:20 PM, Mishra, Sanjay
>>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Murray - Thank you for your comments. We think, replacing the
>>>>> original wording with the following might meet your suggestion and
>>>>> hopefully also add more context.
>>>>> 
>>>>> your comment:
>>>>> "The sentence that begins "This allows for an ..." in the modified
>>>>> abstract
>>>>> appears to contain a grammatical error, but apart from fixing that
>>>>> the new
>>>>> Abstract is approved."
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rebecca - Please see the suggested change:
>>>>> 
>>>>> OLD:
>>>>> This allows for an additive semantics over the narrowing semantics
>>>>> defined in Appendix B of RFC 8008 and therefore updates RFC 8008.
>>>>> 
>>>>> NEW:
>>>>> This new footprint union removes the narrowing constraint of RFC
>>>>> 8008, where the appendix B states that "Multiple footprint
>>>>> constraints are additive: the
>>>>> advertisement of different footprint types narrows the dCDN's
>>>>> candidacy cumulatively". This document defines
>>>>> a footprint union that allows to aggregate footprint objects and
>>>>> thus avoid the narrowing semantics defined in RFC 8008.
>>>>> As a result this change also updates RFC 8008.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Sanjay
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 8:00 PM Murray S. Kucherawy
>>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> The sentence that begins "This allows for an ..." in the modified
>>>>> abstract
>>>>> appears to contain a grammatical error, but apart from fixing that
>>>>> the new
>>>>> Abstract is approved.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -MSK, ART AD
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 11:50 AM 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=PlF4M8_QdgOcmznwdCMsxFh7aXWwvePuXEAGbxAQEynm34FjneeU8Olmzk4fY_sb&s=izrh5yCq36M_Mp9jyvN4prxiCrB_4Lv9qXtGjZj0WIc&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=PlF4M8_QdgOcmznwdCMsxFh7aXWwvePuXEAGbxAQEynm34FjneeU8Olmzk4fY_sb&s=n8nqgkjRAO1xAzK1pN1RzXcjPRCRV1JzMHtiRPin8Go&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=PlF4M8_QdgOcmznwdCMsxFh7aXWwvePuXEAGbxAQEynm34FjneeU8Olmzk4fY_sb&s=0LWp4bviDj8SxKpwjsBA2bKPXEQ2e5YZ2suJM8RqSrg&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=PlF4M8_QdgOcmznwdCMsxFh7aXWwvePuXEAGbxAQEynm34FjneeU8Olmzk4fY_sb&s=MeDbPGbIAixAixZdDSL4J-
>>>>>> 8d1-17t6VLWuKfznY61mw&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=PlF4M8_QdgOcmznwdCMsxFh7aXWwvePuXEAGbxAQEynm34FjneeU8Olmzk4fY_sb&s=vuuh2LywyyPPjyFDjACeK7T0he_gTVSXYNAFAjcMdMA&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=PlF4M8_QdgOcmznwdCMsxFh7aXWwvePuXEAGbxAQEynm34FjneeU8Olmzk4fY_sb&s=izrh5yCq36M_Mp9jyvN4prxiCrB_4Lv9qXtGjZj0WIc&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=PlF4M8_QdgOcmznwdCMsxFh7aXWwvePuXEAGbxAQEynm34FjneeU8Olmzk4fY_sb&s=8FGmPRkaOnT4wp7JEcjNLulabxLt4O9P1I0-
>>>>>> 29PlMDo&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=PlF4M8_QdgOcmznwdCMsxFh7aXWwvePuXEAGbxAQEynm34FjneeU8Olmzk4fY_sb&s=r09pl7lX1i83651V75aSBavKut288c8KGAuXmlqVv2c&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=PlF4M8_QdgOcmznwdCMsxFh7aXWwvePuXEAGbxAQEynm34FjneeU8Olmzk4fY_sb&s=WM3-
>>>>>> w3gVwp_nbVxfp5d6BMb0jLOCc2qxBw9B6pQ5Y7M&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 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=
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language"
>>>>>>>>>> portion of
>>>>>> the online
>>>>>>>>>> Style Guide <
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-
>>>>>> 2Deditor.org_styleguide_part2_-23inclusive-
>>>>>> 5Flanguage&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-
>>>>>> hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-
>>>>>> HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=7x1Jn1xJ1hiMoAjgIuWr_Sf8lm2sMn9H7G4w4qDDFHE&e=
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> and let us know if any changes are needed.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but
>>>>>> this should
>>>>>>>>>> still be reviewed as a best practice.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> [rfced] Sounds like this issue has been reviewed.
>>>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> RFC Editor/st/mf
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Updated 2023/06/06
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> RFC Author(s):
>>>>>>>>>> --------------
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been
>>>>>>>>>> reviewed
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an
>>>>>> RFC.
>>>>>>>>>> If an author is no longer available, there are several
>>>>>>>>>> remedies
>>>>>>>>>> available as listed in the FAQ (
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-
>>>>>> 2Deditor.org_faq_&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-
>>>>>> hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-
>>>>>> HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=7YSpqlsTHjcQ8YAMJVyrVR0YMbLdYc3DdARILwjNU18&e=
>>>>>> ).
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other
>>>>>>>>>> parties
>>>>>>>>>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before
>>>>>> providing
>>>>>>>>>> your approval.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Planning your review
>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Please review the following aspects of your document:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> *  RFC Editor questions
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC
>>>>>> Editor
>>>>>>>>>> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
>>>>>>>>>> follows:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> <!-- [rfced] ... -->
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> *  Changes submitted by coauthors
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
>>>>>>>>>> coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you
>>>>>>>>>> agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> *  Content
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
>>>>>>>>>> change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular
>>>>>> attention to:
>>>>>>>>>> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
>>>>>>>>>> - contact information
>>>>>>>>>> - references
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> *  Copyright notices and legends
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
>>>>>>>>>> RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
>>>>>>>>>> (TLP –
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
>>>>>> 3A__trustee.ietf.org_license-
>>>>>> 2Dinfo_&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-
>>>>>> hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-
>>>>>> HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=FPbPNwV_sBzKZwXzYYsn5P7i_GvEU6TboolWuZe7ucs&e=
>>>>>> ).
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> *  Semantic markup
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that
>>>>>> elements of
>>>>>>>>>> content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that
>>>>>> <sourcecode>
>>>>>>>>>> and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at
>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
>>>>>> 3A__authors.ietf.org_rfcxml-
>>>>>> 2Dvocabulary&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-
>>>>>> hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-
>>>>>> HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=jiL_Sr4EDl2qOhOY6k9Sln40SY7AmjfBtkoI40bIdDM&e=
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> *  Formatted output
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
>>>>>>>>>> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML
>>>>>>>>>> file,
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting
>>>>>>>>>> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Submitting changes
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY
>>>>>>>>>> ALL’ as
>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The
>>>>>> parties
>>>>>>>>>> include:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> *  your coauthors
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
>>>>>>>>>>   IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
>>>>>>>>>>   responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> *  [e-mail], which is a new archival
>>>>>> mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active
>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>>>>>> list:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> *  More info:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
>>>>>> 3A__mailarchive.ietf.org_arch_msg_ietf-2Dannounce_yb6lpIGh-
>>>>>> 2D4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-
>>>>>> hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-
>>>>>> HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=L4yMi5CKgKNJMXGv4Li8mt_atMJqPTgNPvk3h8Q1bVo&e=
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> *  The archive itself:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
>>>>>> 3A__mailarchive.ietf.org_arch_browse_auth48archive_&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-
>>>>>> hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-
>>>>>> HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=hYct6pa-
>>>>>> QRA4O44GNKSxOisHQoCUPq2SmCw6pbcY5R4&e=
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily
>>>>>> opt out
>>>>>>>>>> of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive
>>>>>> matter).
>>>>>>>>>> If needed, please add a note at the top of the message
>>>>>> that you
>>>>>>>>>> have dropped the address. When the discussion is
>>>>>> concluded,
>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC
>>>>>> list and
>>>>>>>>>> its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> An update to the provided XML file
>>>>>>>>>> — OR —
>>>>>>>>>> An explicit list of changes in this format
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Section # (or indicate Global)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> OLD:
>>>>>>>>>> old text
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> NEW:
>>>>>>>>>> new text
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an
>>>>>> explicit
>>>>>>>>>> list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes
>>>>>> that seem
>>>>>>>>>> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text,
>>>>>>>>>> deletion
>>>>>> of text,
>>>>>>>>>> and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>> found in
>>>>>>>>>> the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a
>>>>>>>>>> stream
>>>>>> manager.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Approving for publication
>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this
>>>>>>>>>> email
>>>>>> stating
>>>>>>>>>> that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY
>>>>>>>>>> ALL’,
>>>>>>>>>> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your
>>>>>>>>>> approval
>>>> 
>>> 
>