IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Rebecca VanRheenen <rvanrheenen@amsl.com> Tue, 27 June 2023 17:37 UTC

Return-Path: <rvanrheenen@amsl.com>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00B8FC151073; Tue, 27 Jun 2023 10:37:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hDzEGuG0K53Z; Tue, 27 Jun 2023 10:37:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c8a.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C915BC151070; Tue, 27 Jun 2023 10:37:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF62B424B443; Tue, 27 Jun 2023 10:37:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id spsSaE3P3XHE; Tue, 27 Jun 2023 10:37:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2601:641:300:5fb0:64:f0f0:b264:b73b] (unknown [IPv6:2601:641:300:5fb0:64:f0f0:b264:b73b]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7A15F424B43F; Tue, 27 Jun 2023 10:37:47 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Rebecca VanRheenen <rvanrheenen@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwaCCcCAFe=T7p6=odiQg0NaSjG35i9BaX+vFo6NRUxAPw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 10:37:46 -0700
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, nir@apache.org, sanjay.mishra@verizon.com, cdni-ads@ietf.org, cdni-chairs@ietf.org, kevin.j.ma.ietf@gmail.com, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B6F1D8F7-8730-4EF5-8A22-44E26B12EE4F@amsl.com>
References: <20230607032157.D1EA21978E66@rfcpa.amsl.com> <CAL0qLwaCCcCAFe=T7p6=odiQg0NaSjG35i9BaX+vFo6NRUxAPw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/fPnEZf6ywXK3Vk9Z_Z6nU9W6qbY>
Subject: Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <draft-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types-11> for your review
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 17:37:52 -0000

Hi Murray,

Thanks for reviewing this. We have one addition item for your approval — the sentence in the abstract starting with “Furthermore”. Please review and let us know if you approve. 

This change is best viewed in this diff file: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388-auth48diff.html. 

Thank you, 
RFC Editor/rv



> On Jun 23, 2023, at 10:31 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 8:22 PM <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> 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://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types/writeup/):
> 
> "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.
> 
> -->
> 
> This appears to be an extension enacted by an IANA action.  I think that means the extension presented here was anticipated by RFC 9241 which provided a mechanism for such an extension, which in turn means RFC 9241 is not directly updated by this document.
> 
> So the short answer is "No".  Happy to engage further if someone wants to push the question.
> 
> -MSK, ART AD

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email