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

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

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://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types/writeup/
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dcdni-2Dadditional-2Dfootprint-2Dtypes_writeup_&d=DwMFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=UVP0I48_psFUO0n5TgD6KEo1CjuuwRLHTUKjo4OlgvzmbTdHv2c3cO5LBehiDmaR&s=-e8B2cfpPUu1KI3BaOkYy0a0cuYA5TkkN9kEOHk7doA&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.
>
>
>>
>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
>> the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor&d=DwMFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=UVP0I48_psFUO0n5TgD6KEo1CjuuwRLHTUKjo4OlgvzmbTdHv2c3cO5LBehiDmaR&s=WWrVyt3wNj1gghoyFpCDYC8K_NlZyn1Q_sOntXEwbpU&e=>
>> .
>> org/search. -->
>>
>
> [SM/NS]
> Can you please clarify?
>
>
>>
>> 3) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we update the sentence as follows ("is
>>      defined" / "defines" and "matching" / "that match")?
>>
>> Also, may we update "Herein" to "This document"? Or does "Herein"
>> refer to RFC 8006?
>>
>> Original:
>>    Herein is
>>    defined the subdivisioncode simple data type, as well as a footprint
>>    type allowing the dCDN to define constraints matching geographic
>>    areas with better granularity, specifically using the [ISO3166-2]
>>    Country Subdivision codes.
>>
>> Perhaps:
>>    This document defines
>>    the subdivisioncode simple data type as well as a footprint
>>    type, allowing the dCDN to define constraints that match geographic
>>    areas with better granularity, specifically using the [ISO3166-2]
>>    Country Subdivision codes.
>> -->
>>
>
> [SM/NS]
> Agree, thanks
>
>
>>
>>
>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Appendix B of [RFC8008] shows "Semantics for Footprint
>>      Advertisement"; we don't see "semantics of Footprint Objects
>>      array" in that section. Please review and let us know if any
>>      changes are necessary.
>>
>> Original:
>>    Appendix B of [RFC8008] specifies the semantics of a Footprint
>>    Objects array as a multiple, additive, footprint constraints.
>>
>> Perhaps:
>>    Appendix B of [RFC8008] specifies the semantics of a Footprint
>>    Advertisement (including a Footprint Objects array) as multiple,
>>    additive, footprint constraints.
>> -->
>>
>> [SM/NS]
> Suggested:
> Appendix B of [RFC8008] specifies the semantics for Footprint
>    Advertisement such that multiple footprint constraints are additive.
>
>
>> 5) <!-- [rfced] FYI, to avoid awkward hyphenation and article issues with
>>      singular/plural, we updated this sentence. Please review and let
>>      us know any objections.
>>
>> Original:
>>    The footprint union also enables composing a countrycode and
>>    subdivisioncode based footprint objects.
>>
>> Current:
>>    The footprint union also enables the composing of footprint objects
>>    based on the countrycode and subdivisioncode.
>> -->
>>
>> [SM/NS]
> Agreed. Thanks
>
>>
>> 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://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:3166:-2:ed-4:v1:en
> <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=DwMFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=UVP0I48_psFUO0n5TgD6KEo1CjuuwRLHTUKjo4OlgvzmbTdHv2c3cO5LBehiDmaR&s=sWFE5GPJ5GBfwX7HqYS2Qx1O1Z7H5yvqbNf1iX8n4lA&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
>
>
>>
>> 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://www.svta.org/product/open-cache-request-
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.svta.org_product_open-2Dcache-2Drequest-2D&d=DwMFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=UVP0I48_psFUO0n5TgD6KEo1CjuuwRLHTUKjo4OlgvzmbTdHv2c3cO5LBehiDmaR&s=0TzU7KoCde_xKkV1mKU__S7A2379dndFn-B1aMRvuHg&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://www.svta.org/product/open-cache-request-routing-
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.svta.org_product_open-2Dcache-2Drequest-2Drouting-2D&d=DwMFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=UVP0I48_psFUO0n5TgD6KEo1CjuuwRLHTUKjo4OlgvzmbTdHv2c3cO5LBehiDmaR&s=qtwJZUlTLrAkvqrpFJ-2ns5ZBFVCM_2pqv4NKkIFavQ&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."
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__192.0.2.0_24&d=DwMFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=UVP0I48_psFUO0n5TgD6KEo1CjuuwRLHTUKjo4OlgvzmbTdHv2c3cO5LBehiDmaR&s=TyxVReNt_X8zOPGuoZkMBWjQ2-QEK3WT86woE97Z-vc&e=>",
>> 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
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__192.0.2.0_24&d=DwMFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=UVP0I48_psFUO0n5TgD6KEo1CjuuwRLHTUKjo4OlgvzmbTdHv2c3cO5LBehiDmaR&s=TyxVReNt_X8zOPGuoZkMBWjQ2-QEK3WT86woE97Z-vc&e=>"
>> 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].
>
>
>> b) Similar issue to that in a), but please also review if the second
>> parenthetical should also mention "alpha-2 codes"?
>>
>> Original:
>> In Figure 4, we create a constraint covering autonomous system 64496
>> within the US (ISO [ISO3166-1] alpha-2 code "US") and the Ontario
>> province of Canada (ISO [ISO3166-2] code "CA-ON").
>>
>> Perhaps:
>> In Figure 4, we create a constraint covering autonomous system 64496
>> within the USA (ISO alpha-2 code "US" as described in [ISO3166-1]) and
>> the Ontario province of Canada (ISO code "CA-ON" as described in
>> [ISO3166-2]).
>> -->
>>
>> [SM/NS] Agreed
>
>
>>
>> 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://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__authors.ietf.org_en_rfcxml-2Dvocabulary-23aside&d=DwMFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=UVP0I48_psFUO0n5TgD6KEo1CjuuwRLHTUKjo4OlgvzmbTdHv2c3cO5LBehiDmaR&s=r8gJI6HaGQ_WlqloU7IMyPmkmTcikqCx26gMN1FRJtw&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.
>
>>
>>
>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
>> online
>> Style Guide <
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_styleguide_part2_-23inclusive-5Flanguage&d=DwMFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=UVP0I48_psFUO0n5TgD6KEo1CjuuwRLHTUKjo4OlgvzmbTdHv2c3cO5LBehiDmaR&s=PyFneL_TgMcuS77uiN3d72wFzTkruKLslDEU8oS6q9A&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.
>> -->
>>
>>
>> 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://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_faq_&d=DwMFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=UVP0I48_psFUO0n5TgD6KEo1CjuuwRLHTUKjo4OlgvzmbTdHv2c3cO5LBehiDmaR&s=-W9aQj-vnhypiJPc4Ya3nJYiHbU8AVQxNspZOtueKyo&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://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__trustee.ietf.org_license-2Dinfo_&d=DwMFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=UVP0I48_psFUO0n5TgD6KEo1CjuuwRLHTUKjo4OlgvzmbTdHv2c3cO5LBehiDmaR&s=HYwCzEB6SNT0NS2wyppBRglSP6PGgJGTaiKL0WDebOA&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://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__authors.ietf.org_rfcxml-2Dvocabulary&d=DwMFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=UVP0I48_psFUO0n5TgD6KEo1CjuuwRLHTUKjo4OlgvzmbTdHv2c3cO5LBehiDmaR&s=mOCrjN2H8nKO2s8vB4IIinnJUMsOJDmt1G_MNXYJo1Y&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://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mailarchive.ietf.org_arch_msg_ietf-2Dannounce_yb6lpIGh-2D4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc&d=DwMFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=UVP0I48_psFUO0n5TgD6KEo1CjuuwRLHTUKjo4OlgvzmbTdHv2c3cO5LBehiDmaR&s=HaD2uAtLtMfc5ZVg3eqeSOzJ3UTlmDVV46qeAZT_BjI&e=>
>>
>>      *  The archive itself:
>>         https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mailarchive.ietf.org_arch_browse_auth48archive_&d=DwMFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=UVP0I48_psFUO0n5TgD6KEo1CjuuwRLHTUKjo4OlgvzmbTdHv2c3cO5LBehiDmaR&s=si77t0mFRVASFqpD0efh1ngGf6LCTFC5TAppi1pFVG0&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.
>>
>>
>> Files
>> -----
>>
>> The files are available here:
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388.xml
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.xml&d=DwMFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=UVP0I48_psFUO0n5TgD6KEo1CjuuwRLHTUKjo4OlgvzmbTdHv2c3cO5LBehiDmaR&s=JW14l_H3K-O83ClZH71MXCmtFVjdJUo8ltxkA93sl9w&e=>
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388.html
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=UVP0I48_psFUO0n5TgD6KEo1CjuuwRLHTUKjo4OlgvzmbTdHv2c3cO5LBehiDmaR&s=xgQrWBcmiT9MeaaKsaACarWB-yxh9WytrmZG9H4q8Dw&e=>
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388.pdf
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=UVP0I48_psFUO0n5TgD6KEo1CjuuwRLHTUKjo4OlgvzmbTdHv2c3cO5LBehiDmaR&s=f-eU2GvYY2SOWyHkW0FfMR-Ul1SJh-p8RiQ3v_hBqYY&e=>
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388.txt
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.txt&d=DwMFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=UVP0I48_psFUO0n5TgD6KEo1CjuuwRLHTUKjo4OlgvzmbTdHv2c3cO5LBehiDmaR&s=LFUE0fCYWueaS4VeA4ytdmaIAUg_Nmyr7t66WR3o81M&e=>
>>
>> Diff file of the text:
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388-diff.html
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Ddiff.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=UVP0I48_psFUO0n5TgD6KEo1CjuuwRLHTUKjo4OlgvzmbTdHv2c3cO5LBehiDmaR&s=aDEx3qVaD3Xi8wzUSAbdptNsInYC5SjIVm-m8y_RTqM&e=>
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388-rfcdiff.html
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Drfcdiff.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=UVP0I48_psFUO0n5TgD6KEo1CjuuwRLHTUKjo4OlgvzmbTdHv2c3cO5LBehiDmaR&s=TpLxLrJhzoLy1JYk2KexgBTjoqs75rWoZCE97T75bZg&e=>
>> (side by side)
>>
>> Diff of the XML:
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388-xmldiff1.html
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Dxmldiff1.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=UVP0I48_psFUO0n5TgD6KEo1CjuuwRLHTUKjo4OlgvzmbTdHv2c3cO5LBehiDmaR&s=t8p0GPLay2hVm2meQPY0pl9GZCCsBsJdKm3skCRKQbw&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://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388.original.v2v3.xml
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.original.v2v3.xml&d=DwMFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=UVP0I48_psFUO0n5TgD6KEo1CjuuwRLHTUKjo4OlgvzmbTdHv2c3cO5LBehiDmaR&s=UAGuP0EQQGTiPyw5mCEaaKmNqo8ljZyxVRM1GMQe0tc&e=>
>>
>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
>> only:
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388.form.xml
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.form.xml&d=DwMFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=UVP0I48_psFUO0n5TgD6KEo1CjuuwRLHTUKjo4OlgvzmbTdHv2c3cO5LBehiDmaR&s=X16PA8Ll5vt74VjcS3QSVfkB4dx8rYoEQu6adjjYWTc&e=>
>>
>>
>> Tracking progress
>> -----------------
>>
>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9388
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_auth48_rfc9388&d=DwMFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=UVP0I48_psFUO0n5TgD6KEo1CjuuwRLHTUKjo4OlgvzmbTdHv2c3cO5LBehiDmaR&s=XxNyi6aCh6e0zzTpBmEnhJvpZLE27B0IdCk77REdTnU&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
>>
>>
>>