Re: [auth48] [AD] Re: [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <draft-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types-11> for your review
"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Sat, 08 July 2023 00:00 UTC
Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.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 1A45FC1519AA; Fri, 7 Jul 2023 17:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.85
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.85 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, NUMERIC_HTTP_ADDR=1.242, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 DETjHpnK15Wx; Fri, 7 Jul 2023 17:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x533.google.com (mail-ed1-x533.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::533]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 1E39CC1519A9; Fri, 7 Jul 2023 17:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x533.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-51e2498a353so555967a12.0; Fri, 07 Jul 2023 17:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1688774405; x=1691366405; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=XA8CfClrbbuKbpPQ9tlZW8BvHXm2iWmaHmEqSmjRF3M=; b=qexbgl6nVj8hSJd6mPBhwplE0RMQFQ+F/S2zpFpmS4TvJplHM74q965DUeBWmnL5Yu XuoiAQybKA2f8VxCeddDiDjMcWDEsnU799TbnDzWVdNW+C8WkW+1OyFBJdt5h9mN9UQ5 7FJEUlqm4amWDyLJwKCgtQR2P//TJBqlOHaAXJoiV7CLow1zXJ3rXSXklgsoCGQfbfx/ F/qbv4jwDBynre+xDWd7X8ui0t+VhL9OSxEDNj+CLGdYGaSSunt2NIQoB5ou/UsFPpeF /gVzFPiRkZ6RwJY51OcYQnge7M0309jnEoWrzIuzQKF+UAttlLmjJ0wBaS1DuCLfK6nf r/+Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1688774405; x=1691366405; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=XA8CfClrbbuKbpPQ9tlZW8BvHXm2iWmaHmEqSmjRF3M=; b=iy2cM7GPZ4r1I2hoNh1fOXm4OvXCkauDwKQi4akWshrnktOxlUPYvORRvhgJYi/tfh KHEjWJ54TJlrjNfA26ljcUZJteCVr0U9HmN+9ifKzF5xzZGlzROVc9dSU+Qb+jSEZzIj A+HAu8THttiKuhhzUXTkMPFZ+McjVEYyde4AEnlTlDhMI6MakDOmFOA6keN1LcZCE8Sp NdKdwYK1TNENOeC5wIBkN3VT43o8vs2X4Z494sKorQsRJ+eLjSF2NY3jTFtGXZKcQjXD A+29Lq9nGLq1t7HfABkUPL2BoRbDrpLAlbgLFhywoIksN/+skkG9zVFSIXBvvlM1nDbx Rt+Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABy/qLYiE0fP9DYB8eUPQe6DfpN+FTW7AnFVU9eOeyKyFpPnoNUJfyrh 9nYW42AKgpyk6C8ppp0ebZgXYSJTEplcehTn0SU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APBJJlG5C/utHew8f02QL0zPXW5yddLARVFmxW5oreEECAbsxBzXgzXE5pGpDhjqFc3w0kB5Ftq2uT7KqNoY83Tb5Xs=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:77dc:b0:987:115d:ba06 with SMTP id m28-20020a17090677dc00b00987115dba06mr4148416ejn.4.1688774404558; Fri, 07 Jul 2023 17:00:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230607032157.D1EA21978E66@rfcpa.amsl.com> <CACUa7-tJa+AROA-Z9C_nKyLarEnLJa17dQO51j9KtAWfxUbkrg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EbDtBuqVCDYkuecZ3UXvoRsn6+7MhUHRWFUTKxNPMztz=01A@mail.gmail.com> <51D75AE1-663C-46A4-AD0C-4F8BAA256D69@amsl.com> <CACUa7-uj=apnLsyhMH8fycZyTagnPTp1JBcfTVW3zKt3aCCWYw@mail.gmail.com> <CACUa7-vbeCPi5acwwmq48robYgUiG3BOzkoMTyk0yEhQtcBP-Q@mail.gmail.com> <2375666D-7567-4897-9544-DE15F08DFBCF@amsl.com> <CACUa7-sWZNtHmij2XogouykPEWe5drvdOVEr26VG_4B9EgJ7Fw@mail.gmail.com> <9CB9625F-D18A-4705-9150-80ABCF090703@amsl.com> <CA+EbDtD0=xgSohWecmdxN6v5Kz3QPdqsWj7nVoGEZFOCuzytJw@mail.gmail.com> <5FA74F4B-DD63-4308-80DD-D9AE050B45BB@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <5FA74F4B-DD63-4308-80DD-D9AE050B45BB@amsl.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2023 16:59:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZ3UvEYDc20+E2t2Bp7LF_0KkYKD_MvXK4kj6zcBxBO9g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rebecca VanRheenen <rvanrheenen@amsl.com>
Cc: "Mishra, Sanjay" <sanjay.mishra@verizon.com>, Nir Sopher <nirsopher@gmail.com>, nir@apache.org, cdni-ads@ietf.org, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, cdni-chairs@ietf.org, Kevin Ma <kevin.j.ma.ietf@gmail.com>, Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007d530405ffee6e4b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/knN6PGCF1qAlWg9yrD9yl6DAr8M>
Subject: Re: [auth48] [AD] Re: [E] 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: Sat, 08 Jul 2023 00:00:12 -0000
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 <rvanrheenen@amsl.com> 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://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388-auth48diff.html > > Updated XML file: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388.xml > > Updated output files: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388.html > > Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388-auth48diff.html > > Diff files showing all changes: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388-rfcdiff.html (side-by-side > rfcdiff) > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9388 > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/rv > > > > On Jul 5, 2023, at 9:10 AM, Mishra, Sanjay <sanjay.mishra@verizon.com> > 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 <rvanrheenen@amsl.com> > 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 <nirsopher@gmail.com> 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 < > rvanrheenen@amsl.com> 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 <nirsopher@gmail.com> > 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 <nirsopher@gmail.com> > 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 <mferguson@amsl.com> > 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 < > sanjay.mishra@verizon.com> 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 <nirsopher@gmail.com> > 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 <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> 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 > > > > > > > > > > * rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org (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). > > > > > > > > > > * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, 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, > > > > > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Files > > > > > ----- > > > > > > > > > > The files are available here: > > > > > > 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= > > > > > > 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.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.txt&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=IieWbMjKlQyOjbotwBn4pWyKdVhg6OHEvOZ_92Fxpac&e= > > > > > > > > > > Diff file of the text: > > > > > > 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) > > > > > > > > > > Diff of the XML: > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Dxmldiff1.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=tU4RqnduGxzB6Fv1-rZJy0Z3PAybQtJt8F1su2Q6B1A&e= > > > > > > > > > > The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your > own > > > > > diff files of the XML. > > > > > > > > > > Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input: > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.original.v2v3.xml&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=BqTPeJ4EC3JnQz33qtKyAh9Sn4XOODOPu1Fh_NoJtkk&e= > > > > > > > > > > > XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format > updates > > > > > only: > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.form.xml&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=MyGl3SMHkd0Vcfn53Oi1JhJ_SOdWBM86xT3JqnI_T8o&e= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tracking progress > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > > > > > > 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= > > > > > > > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > > > > > > > > > RFC Editor > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > > RFC9388 (draft-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types-11) > > > > > > > > > > Title : Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) > Footprint Types: Subdivision Code and Footprint Union > > > > > Author(s) : N. Sopher, S. Mishra > > > > > WG Chair(s) : Kevin J. Ma, Sanjay Mishra > > > > > Area Director(s) : Murray Kucherawy, Francesca Palombini > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
- [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <draft-ietf-cdni-… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <draft-i… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <draft-i… Megan Ferguson
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <draft-i… Nir Sopher
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <draft-i… Nir Sopher
- Re: [auth48] [E] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 … Mishra, Sanjay
- Re: [auth48] [E] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <dra… Megan Ferguson
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <draft-i… Nir Sopher
- Re: [auth48] [E] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <dra… Nir Sopher
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <draft-i… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <draft-i… Nir Sopher
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <draft-i… Rebecca VanRheenen
- Re: [auth48] [E] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <dra… Rebecca VanRheenen
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <draft-i… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <draft-i… Rebecca VanRheenen
- Re: [auth48] [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <draft-ie… Mishra, Sanjay
- Re: [auth48] [E] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <dra… Nir Sopher
- Re: [auth48] [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <draft-ie… Rebecca VanRheenen
- Re: [auth48] [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <draft-ie… Nir Sopher
- Re: [auth48] [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <draft-ie… Rebecca VanRheenen
- Re: [auth48] [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <draft-ie… Mishra, Sanjay
- [auth48] [AD] Re: [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <dra… Rebecca VanRheenen
- Re: [auth48] [AD] [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <dra… Rebecca VanRheenen
- Re: [auth48] [AD] Re: [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 … Mishra, Sanjay
- Re: [auth48] [AD] [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <dra… Mishra, Sanjay
- Re: [auth48] [AD] [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <dra… Nir Sopher
- Re: [auth48] [AD] [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <dra… Mishra, Sanjay
- Re: [auth48] [AD] [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <dra… Rebecca VanRheenen
- Re: [auth48] [AD] [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <dra… Rebecca VanRheenen
- Re: [auth48] [AD] [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <dra… Mishra, Sanjay
- Re: [auth48] [AD] [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <dra… Rebecca VanRheenen
- Re: [auth48] [AD] [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <dra… Rebecca VanRheenen
- Re: [auth48] [AD] [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <dra… Mishra, Sanjay
- Re: [auth48] [AD] [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <dra… Mishra, Sanjay
- Re: [auth48] [AD] Re: [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 … Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [auth48] [AD] Re: [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 … Mishra, Sanjay
- Re: [auth48] [AD] [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <dra… Rebecca VanRheenen
- Re: [auth48] [AD] [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <dra… Mishra, Sanjay
- Re: [auth48] [AD] [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <dra… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [auth48] [AD] [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <dra… Rebecca VanRheenen
- [auth48] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <draft… Rebecca VanRheenen
- Re: [auth48] [AD] [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9388 <dra… Mishra, Sanjay
- [auth48] [IANA #1276431] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-t… Amanda Baber via RT
- Re: [auth48] [IANA #1276431] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: R… Rebecca VanRheenen
- Re: [auth48] [IANA #1276431] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: R… Rebecca VanRheenen