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

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

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