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

[Nir Sopher <[e-mail]>]

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
>
>