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

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

I prefer the more terse text.  Since Sanjay indicated he can live with it,
let's proceed that way.  So that's Rebecca's proposed correction that
removes "an" only.

-MSK, ART AD

On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 11:18 AM Mishra, Sanjay <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Rebecca - While Murray is considering the new Abstract text, we have one
> more suggestion to the proposed text. We could also not use "removes" in
> the text and instead use "relaxes" for example, the NEW abstract will read
> as follows:
>
> Current:
>    This allows for an
>    additive semantics over the narrowing semantics defined in Appendix B
>    of RFC 8008 and therefore updates RFC 8008.
>
> Revised:
>    This new footprint union removes *relaxes* the narrowing constraint of
> RFC 8008, where
>    Appendix B states the following: "Multiple footprint constraints are
> additive: the
>    advertisement of different footprint types narrows the dCDN's candidacy
> cumulatively.”
>    This document defines  a footprint union that allows aggregation of
> footprint objects and
>    thus avoids the narrowing semantics defined in RFC 8008. As a result,
> this change also
>    updates RFC 8008.
>
> Or we can leave as-is and just remove "an" from the abstract as Murray
> pointed to.
>
> Thanks
> Sanjay
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 1:35 PM Rebecca VanRheenen <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Murray* and Sanjay,
>>
>> Murray, we believe that you are suggesting cutting “an” from the current
>> sentence in the abstract (though let us know if there is anything else in
>> that sentence that you’d like to improve). Sanjay has also suggested
>> extending this text further. Which update is preferred? Please discuss and
>> let us know how to update the document.
>>
>> *Murray, if Sanjay’s new text is preferred, please let us know if you
>> approve it (we consider this update “above editorial” as it adds new text).
>>
>> Current:
>>    This allows for an
>>    additive semantics over the narrowing semantics defined in Appendix B
>>    of RFC 8008 and therefore updates RFC 8008.
>>
>> Perhaps (remove “an”)
>>   This allows for
>>    additive semantics over the narrowing semantics defined in Appendix B
>>    of RFC 8008 and therefore updates RFC 8008.
>>
>> Or (Sanjay’s suggested text, with some minor edits):
>>    This new footprint union removes the narrowing constraint of RFC 8008,
>> where
>>    Appendix B states the following: "Multiple footprint constraints are
>> additive: the
>>    advertisement of different footprint types narrows the dCDN's
>> candidacy cumulatively.”
>>    This document defines  a footprint union that allows aggregation of
>> footprint objects and
>>    thus avoids the narrowing semantics defined in RFC 8008. As a result,
>> this change also
>>    updates RFC 8008.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> RFC Editor/rv
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 8, 2023, at 3:20 PM, Mishra, Sanjay <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Murray - Thank you for your comments. We think, replacing the
>> original wording with the following might meet your suggestion and
>> hopefully also add more context.
>> >
>> > your comment:
>> > "The sentence that begins "This allows for an ..." in the modified
>> abstract
>> > appears to contain a grammatical error, but apart from fixing that the
>> new
>> > Abstract is approved."
>> >
>> > Rebecca - Please see the suggested change:
>> >
>> > OLD:
>> > This allows for an additive semantics over the narrowing semantics
>> defined in Appendix B of RFC 8008 and therefore updates RFC 8008.
>> >
>> > NEW:
>> > This new footprint union removes the narrowing constraint of RFC 8008,
>> where the appendix B states that "Multiple footprint constraints are
>> additive: the
>> > advertisement of different footprint types narrows the dCDN's candidacy
>> cumulatively". This document defines
>> > a footprint union that allows to aggregate footprint objects and thus
>> avoid the narrowing semantics defined in RFC 8008.
>> > As a result this change also updates RFC 8008.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Sanjay
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 8:00 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> > The sentence that begins "This allows for an ..." in the modified
>> abstract
>> > appears to contain a grammatical error, but apart from fixing that the
>> new
>> > Abstract is approved.
>> >
>> > -MSK, ART AD
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 11:50 AM Rebecca VanRheenen <
>> [e-mail]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Sanjay, Nir, and Murray*,
>> > >
>> > > Sanjay and Nir, thank you for providing the additional edits. We have
>> > > applied them all and posted updated files (see below). We did not
>> make any
>> > > changes regarding <aside> and consider that question closed per your
>> > > response. Please review the updated files and let us know if you
>> approve
>> > > the document in its current form.
>> > >
>> > > *Murray, as AD, please review the latest changes in the abstract and
>> let
>> > > us know if you approve. You can view the changes in this diff file:
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Dauth48diff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PlF4M8_QdgOcmznwdCMsxFh7aXWwvePuXEAGbxAQEynm34FjneeU8Olmzk4fY_sb&s=izrh5yCq36M_Mp9jyvN4prxiCrB_4Lv9qXtGjZj0WIc&e=
>> > >
>> > > Updated XML file:
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.xml&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PlF4M8_QdgOcmznwdCMsxFh7aXWwvePuXEAGbxAQEynm34FjneeU8Olmzk4fY_sb&s=n8nqgkjRAO1xAzK1pN1RzXcjPRCRV1JzMHtiRPin8Go&e=
>> > >
>> > > Updated output files:
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.txt&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PlF4M8_QdgOcmznwdCMsxFh7aXWwvePuXEAGbxAQEynm34FjneeU8Olmzk4fY_sb&s=0LWp4bviDj8SxKpwjsBA2bKPXEQ2e5YZ2suJM8RqSrg&e=
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PlF4M8_QdgOcmznwdCMsxFh7aXWwvePuXEAGbxAQEynm34FjneeU8Olmzk4fY_sb&s=MeDbPGbIAixAixZdDSL4J-8d1-17t6VLWuKfznY61mw&e=
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PlF4M8_QdgOcmznwdCMsxFh7aXWwvePuXEAGbxAQEynm34FjneeU8Olmzk4fY_sb&s=vuuh2LywyyPPjyFDjACeK7T0he_gTVSXYNAFAjcMdMA&e=
>> > >
>> > > Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Dauth48diff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PlF4M8_QdgOcmznwdCMsxFh7aXWwvePuXEAGbxAQEynm34FjneeU8Olmzk4fY_sb&s=izrh5yCq36M_Mp9jyvN4prxiCrB_4Lv9qXtGjZj0WIc&e=
>> > >
>> > > Diff files showing all changes:
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Ddiff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PlF4M8_QdgOcmznwdCMsxFh7aXWwvePuXEAGbxAQEynm34FjneeU8Olmzk4fY_sb&s=8FGmPRkaOnT4wp7JEcjNLulabxLt4O9P1I0-29PlMDo&e=
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Drfcdiff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PlF4M8_QdgOcmznwdCMsxFh7aXWwvePuXEAGbxAQEynm34FjneeU8Olmzk4fY_sb&s=r09pl7lX1i83651V75aSBavKut288c8KGAuXmlqVv2c&e=
>> (side-by-side
>> > > rfcdiff)
>> > >
>> > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_auth48_rfc9388&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PlF4M8_QdgOcmznwdCMsxFh7aXWwvePuXEAGbxAQEynm34FjneeU8Olmzk4fY_sb&s=WM3-w3gVwp_nbVxfp5d6BMb0jLOCc2qxBw9B6pQ5Y7M&e=
>> > >
>> > > Thank you,
>> > > RFC Editor/rv
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > On Jul 5, 2023, at 9:10 AM, Mishra, Sanjay <
>> [e-mail]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Hi Rebecca - Thank you for the current edits. Please see our
>> response
>> > > below.
>> > > >
>> > > > With regards to the "aside" container. We did not find any need for
>> it
>> > > in the document.
>> > > >
>> > > > However, while scanning the document, we found a few additional
>> edits:
>> > > >
>> > > > 1. Abstract: (adding "for delegation" after "granularity to better
>> > > explain the context)
>> > > > OLD:
>> > > > Defining this country subdivision code improves granularity as
>> compared
>> > > to the
>> > > > ISO 3166-1 country code footprint type defined in RFC 8006.
>> > > >
>> > > > NEW (changes marked in bold for visual identification):
>> > > > Defining this country subdivision code improves granularity for
>> > > delegation
>> > > >  as compared to the
>> > > > ISO 3166-1 country code footprint type defined in RFC 8006.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > 2. Abstract: (Remove "this" and join it with the prior sentence for
>> ease
>> > > of flow of the sentence. text bolded for identification)
>> > > > OLD:
>> > > > The second footprint type defines a footprint union to aggregate
>> > > footprint objects. This allows for an additive semantics over the
>> narrowing
>> > > semantics defined in Appendix B of RFC 8008. This updates RFC 8008.
>> > > >
>> > > > New:
>> > > > The second footprint type defines a footprint union to aggregate
>> > > footprint objects. This allows for an additive semantics over the
>> narrowing
>> > > semantics defined in Appendix B of RFC 8008, and therefore updates
>> RFC 8008.
>> > > >
>> > > > 3. Section 2.2 - a very long sentence that may be broken into 2
>> parts.
>> > > Changes are shown in BOLD for identification of the new text
>> > > > OLD:
>> > > > Using footprint objects of these types, one can define FCI
>> Capability
>> > > Advertisement object footprint constraints that match either IPv4 or
>> IPv6
>> > > clients, but not both due to the described "narrowing" semantic of the
>> > > Footprint Objects array, as described in Appendix B of that prevents
>> the
>> > > usage of these objects together to create a footprint constraint that
>> > > matches IPv4 clients with IPv6 clients.
>> > > >
>> > > > New:
>> > > > Using footprint objects of these types, one can define FCI
>> Capability
>> > > Advertisement object footprint constraints that match either IPv4 or
>> IPv6
>> > > clients, but not both. This is due to the described "narrowing"
>> semantic of
>> > > the Footprint Objects array, as described in Appendix B of RFC 8008
>> that
>> > > prevents the usage of these objects together to create a footprint
>> > > constraint that matches IPv4 clients with IPv6 clients.
>> > > >
>> > > > 4. Section 1 Introduction (first bullet). Adding "Country" before
>> > > subdivision code. Text is bolded for identification.
>> > > > OLD:
>> > > > Subdivision code footprint type (e.g., for a dCDN advertising a
>> > > footprint that is specific to a state in the United States of America)
>> > > >
>> > > > NEW:
>> > > > Country subdivision code footprint type (e.g., for a dCDN
>> advertising a
>> > > footprint that is specific to a state in the United States of America)
>> > > >
>> > > > 5. Section 2.2 - a typo (missing "i" and a space. also adding
>> "country"
>> > > ahead of subdivision code)
>> > > > OLD:
>> > > > for example, an IPv4 CIDR together with an IPv6 CIDR or a country
>> code
>> > > together with a subdivisoncode
>> > > >
>> > > > NEW:
>> > > > for example, an IPv4 CIDR together with an IPv6 CIDR or a country
>> code
>> > > together with a country subdivision code
>> > > >
>> > > > 6. Section 2.2.2 - We don't think "the" is needed in this sentence
>> (as
>> > > below) and also adding "country" in front of "subdivision code".
>> > > > OLD:
>> > > > The footprint union also enables the
>> > > >  composing of footprint objects
>> > > > based on the
>> > > > country code and  subdivision code.
>> > > >   In Figure 4, we
>> > > > create a constraint covering autonomous system 64496 within the USA
>> > > >
>> > > > NEW:
>> > > > The footprint union also enables
>> > > > composing of footprint objects
>> > > > based on the country code and
>> > > > country subdivision code.
>> > > >   In Figure 4, we
>> > > > create a constraint covering autonomous system 64496 within the USA
>> > > >
>> > > > 7. Section 3.1.3 (adding "country" in front of the subdivision
>> codes.)
>> > > > OLD:
>> > > > There is no hierarchy or inheritance for properties associated with
>> > > subdivision codes.
>> > > > New:
>> > > > There is no hierarchy or inheritance for properties associated with
>> > > country subdivision codes.
>> > > > Thank you very much.
>> > > > Nir and Sanjay
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 1:21 PM Rebecca VanRheenen <
>> [e-mail]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > Hi Nir,
>> > > >
>> > > > Thank you for addressing theses questions. We have updated the
>> document
>> > > accordingly and added the keywords you provided to our database.
>> > > >
>> > > > Regarding this:
>> > > >
>> > > > >>>> > 11) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in
>> this
>> > > document
>> > > > >>>> > should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a
>> container
>> > > for
>> > > > >>>> > content that is semantically less important or tangential to
>> the
>> > > > >>>> > content that surrounds it" (
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__authors.ietf.org_en_rfcxml-2Dvocabulary-23aside&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=aNcD_pgXb5qjTllxyCe5MJQgRTzMv518ReluUd8bmm0&e=
>> > > ).
>> > > > >>>> > -->
>> > > > >>>> > [NS] I do not fully understand the point here.
>> > > > >>>> > Will try to read more about it, but if you can give more
>> > > details/an example it would greatly assist me.
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> [rfced]  You may find more info at
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__authors.ietf.org_rfcxml-2Dvocabulary-23aside&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=1M4B3QCqA-VdOlGvuDQx_ARDiekvCjXUnsFEl3YM6OM&e=
>> > > .
>> > > > >> [NS] I'm not familiar with this concept but do not think we have
>> a
>> > > need for such a change.
>> > > > > Can you please share an example for a document where it had been
>> in
>> > > use?
>> > > >
>> > > > You can view examples in RFCs 9396 and 9393. Search for “Note:” in
>> the
>> > > output files to see how these are formatted.
>> > > >
>> > > > This is our final question. After it is addressed, we will ask
>> Murray to
>> > > approve the latest changes in the abstract and then request that IANA
>> > > update the registry to match the edited document.
>> > > >
>> > > > Updated XML file:
>> > > >
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.xml&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=rnI8C1TMJM7slUpITW4U5Vdm5ztUEavWyIDN1E3AAfM&e=
>> > > >
>> > > > Updated output files:
>> > > >
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.txt&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=IieWbMjKlQyOjbotwBn4pWyKdVhg6OHEvOZ_92Fxpac&e=
>> > > >
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=OsOtC3a1iG3EgG5MI90EvAiIm5JQfFFZTLCCfOi2FjU&e=
>> > > >
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=5RUZa-waUbT9MLHL6Uk72KiqqboJpZRPGtNhb1I_XhM&e=
>> > > >
>> > > > Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
>> > > >
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Dauth48diff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=UKF29gl7ddwUQLv3EBUGmwRVHlWi-Pb4MFMgVeu08GA&e=
>> > > >
>> > > > Diff files showing all changes:
>> > > >
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Ddiff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=hyrRs85zhPo4vN4YB01d1PryXreU2Y-TFs1wADaivqE&e=
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Drfcdiff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=SQiCq6D5pEFep56sVnJKK7eYV2HQh5AOE40pMme0PDg&e=
>> > > (side-by-side rfcdiff)
>> > > >
>> > > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>> > > >
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_auth48_rfc9388&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=YlgKeXnxnaQB9jBO1Qvz99OclaLDY4kdfWGy0i_IFEw&e=
>> > > >
>> > > > Thank you,
>> > > > RFC Editor/rv
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > On Jun 29, 2023, at 6:28 AM, Nir Sopher <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thank you Rebecca,
>> > > > > See comments below.
>> > > > > Many thanks,
>> > > > > Nir
>> > > > >
>> > > > > ------
>> > > > > WRT the abstract. Indeed a "a" or "this is missing. Let's go for
>> > > adding a "this", we were also missing the "country" token
>> > > > > OLD: Defining subdivision code
>> > > > > NEW: Defining this country subdivision code
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -------
>> > > > > Now, for the additional comments:
>> > > > > [rfced] If there are any keywords you think readers might want to
>> > > search when they look for documents on this topic, and the words are
>> not
>> > > already in the title, we can add them to our database.
>> > > > > [NS/SM] We would add:
>> > > > > - Request Routing
>> > > > > - Footprint and Capabilities Semantics
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -------
>> > > > > [rfced] Please review our updates to ensure that this reference
>> now
>> > > appears as desired.
>> > > > > [NS/SM] Reviewed. Great :)
>> > > > > -------
>> > > > > > 8) ...[rfced] We made these updates based on
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__author-2Dtools.ietf.org_iddiff-3Furl1-3Ddraft-2Dietf-2Dcdni-2Dadditional-2Dfootprint-2Dtypes-2D11-26url2-3Ddraft-2Dietf-2Dcdni-2Dadditional-2Dfootprint-2Dtypes-2D12-26difftype-3D-2D-2Dhwdiff&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=Z1AcNQijBUwEzbxLmx0zS3S9_ix4Q4-tcdsIllVGvSc&e=
>> > > > > [rfced] We have updated the examples below as suggested.  Please
>> let
>> > > us know if any further occurrences of “match” need changes.
>> > > > > [NS/SM] Approved
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -------
>> > > > > > 11) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this
>> > > document
>> > > > > > should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container
>> for
>> > > > > > content that is semantically less important or tangential to the
>> > > > > > content that surrounds it" (
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__authors.ietf.org_en_rfcxml-2Dvocabulary-23aside&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=aNcD_pgXb5qjTllxyCe5MJQgRTzMv518ReluUd8bmm0&e=
>> > > ).
>> > > > > > -->
>> > > > > > [NS] I do not fully understand the point here.
>> > > > > > Will try to read more about it, but if you can give more
>> details/an
>> > > example it would greatly assist me.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -------
>> > > > > [rfced]  You may find more info at
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__authors.ietf.org_rfcxml-2Dvocabulary-23aside&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=1M4B3QCqA-VdOlGvuDQx_ARDiekvCjXUnsFEl3YM6OM&e=
>> > > .
>> > > > > [NS] I'm not familiar with this concept but do not think we have a
>> > > need for such a change.
>> > > > > Can you please share an example for a document where it had been
>> in
>> > > use?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -------
>> > > > > > 12) ...
>> > > > > [rfced] Sounds like this issue has been reviewed.
>> > > > > [NS/SM] Correct
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 9:56 PM Rebecca VanRheenen <
>> > > [e-mail]> wrote:
>> > > > > Hi Nir and Sanjay,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thank you for your replies! We have updated the abstract and
>> Section
>> > > 2.2 as suggested by Nir. The updated files are listed below.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > We have one question about the abstract: should “Defining
>> subdivision
>> > > code” be updated to "Defining a subdivision code” (with “a”),
>> "Defining
>> > > this subdivision code” (with “this”), or something similar?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Current:
>> > > > >   Defining subdivision code improves granularity as compared to
>> the
>> > > ISO3166-1
>> > > > >   country code footprint type, defined in RFC 8006.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Also, Megan sent the following followup questions/comments on 22
>> June
>> > > 2023. (I’ll be the point of contact going forward as Megan is out of
>> the
>> > > office.) Once these and the question above about the abstract are
>> > > addressed, we will mark your approvals.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Note that once the sentence in the abstract is finalized, we will
>> ask
>> > > Murray to approve the abstract as some text was added (we consider
>> added
>> > > text to be “above editorial”, thus requiring AD approval). In
>> addition,
>> > > some changes were made to the description column in Section 4.1, which
>> > > affects the IANA registry. After we receive all approvals, we will
>> ask IANA
>> > > to update the registry to match the edited document (see details in
>> the
>> > > note on the AUTH48 status page at
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_auth48_rfc9388&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=VQjmYPucQGmeTZrxHx4YLSjD_AjjHaAC3RCCHQKTf_g&e=
>> > > ).
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that
>> appear
>> > > in the title) for use on
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=H-DXaaooMlmFo5W3UAuSjRt_Fy-dd-mEaPEILis6hkE&e=
>> > > .
>> > > > > > org/search. -->
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > [SM/NS]
>> > > > > > Can you please clarify?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > [rfced] If there are any keywords you think readers might want to
>> > > search when they look for documents on this topic, and the words are
>> not
>> > > already in the title, we can add them to our database.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > 6) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions about text in the
>> > > Table in
>> > > > > >     Section 4.1.  Note that we will communicate any necessary
>> changes
>> > > > > >     to IANA upon completion of AUTH48.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > a) What does "hyphen-minus" mean?  Is this trying to
>> communicate that
>> > > > > > some people might call it a hyphen and some might say minus
>> sign?  Or
>> > > > > > something else?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > [SM/NS]
>> > > > > > We can drop the "-minus" and leave only the "hyphen".
>> > > > > > Note that we took the "hyphen-minus" terminology for the actual
>> ISO
>> > > defining the country subdivision values:
>> > > > > > See
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.iso.org_obp_ui_-23iso-3Astd-3Aiso-3A3166-3A-2D2-3Aed-2D4-3Av1-3Aen&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=gGyH0z2JR4_54vqv0BBl6b5AL58HCWllGcPr3Cs9-7E&e=
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > b) Is this spacing correct?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Original:
>> > > > > > Characters from A-Z;0-9
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Perhaps:
>> > > > > > Characters from A-Z and 0-9
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > -->
>> > > > > > [SM/NS]
>> > > > > > For the ease of reading we agree with your suggestion.
>> > > > > > Yet again, this was copied from the ISO defining the values
>> structure
>> > > > >
>> > > > > [rfced] We have left both of the above as they were.  Thank you
>> for
>> > > providing background on these choices.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > 7) <!-- [rfced] For reference [OC-RR], the provided URL points
>> to a
>> > > page
>> > > > > >     that shows the document being both Version 2.0 and 2.1.
>> Which
>> > > > > >     version is correct?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Also, the provided URL shows two more contributors: Thomas
>> Edwards
>> > > and
>> > > > > > Yoav Gressel. Would you like these to be added to the reference
>> as
>> > > > > > authors?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Original:
>> > > > > >   [OC-RR]    Finkelman, O., Ed., Hofmann, J., Klein, E.,
>> Mishra, S.,
>> > > > > >              Ma, K., Sahar, D., and B. Zurat, "Open Caching -
>> Request
>> > > > > >              Routing Functional Specification", Version 2.0, 15
>> > > January
>> > > > > >              2021, <
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.svta.org_product_open-2Dcache-2Drequest-2D&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=WhHa9lNnA0TysADGsuVn07x3jcJhEwjEINW6NhaL9FY&e=
>> > > > > >              routing-functional-specification/>.
>> > > > > > Perhaps:
>> > > > > >   [OC-RR]    Finkelman, O., Ed., Zurat, B., Sahar, D., Klein,
>> E.,
>> > > > > >              Hofmann, J., Ma, K.J., Stock, M., Mishra, S.,
>> Edwards,
>> > > T.,
>> > > > > >              and Y. Yoav, "Open Caching - Request Routing
>> Functional
>> > > > > >              Specification", Version 2.0, 15 January 2021,
>> > > > > >              <
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.svta.org_product_open-2Dcache-2Drequest-2Drouting-2D&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=Fae8JNp_La87atc_-iT7-guUyp6yGpEQYdMzUNiBcdY&e=
>> > > > > >              functional-specification/>.
>> > > > > > -->
>> > > > > > [SM/NS]
>> > > > > > We will stick to version 2.0
>> > > > > > We are working to get the OC-RR webpage updated to reflect
>> version
>> > > 2.0.
>> > > > > > We would also push forward adding Thomas Edwards to the authors
>> list
>> > > (Yoav is already listed in the document).
>> > > > > > Please note that in the proposal Yoav was added as "Y. Yoav"
>> instead
>> > > of "G. Yoav" or to be consistent "Gressel, Y.”
>> > > > >
>> > > > > [rfced] Please review our updates to ensure that this reference
>> now
>> > > appears as desired.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > 8) <!-- [rfced] Terminology: Throughout the document, we
>> spotted the
>> > > > > >     following issues related to terminology.  Please review each
>> > > > > >     question below and let us know how to update, using old/new
>> where
>> > > > > >     necessary.  Note that you are welcome to update the xml file
>> > > > > >     itself if that is easier than explaining the changes via
>> email.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > [rfced] We made these updates based on
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__author-2Dtools.ietf.org_iddiff-3Furl1-3Ddraft-2Dietf-2Dcdni-2Dadditional-2Dfootprint-2Dtypes-2D11-26url2-3Ddraft-2Dietf-2Dcdni-2Dadditional-2Dfootprint-2Dtypes-2D12-26difftype-3D-2D-2Dhwdiff&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=Z1AcNQijBUwEzbxLmx0zS3S9_ix4Q4-tcdsIllVGvSc&e=
>> > > .
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > 1) Please review the way that the following terms appear
>> throughout
>> > > the document
>> > > > > > with regard to capitalization, hyphenation, quotation, spacing,
>> > > phrasing, etc. and let us know
>> > > > > > if/how we may make these terms consistent:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > a) object vs. Object
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > CDNI Footprint object vs. CNDI Footprint Object
>> > > > > > Footprint Objects vs. Footprint objects vs. footprint objects
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > (Note that RFC 8006 uses Footprint object)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > [SM/NS] we changed all instances to lower case "object"
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > b) Footprint, Footprint Types, Footprint Values, Footprint Union
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > footprint (as a general noun)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Footprint Types vs. footprint-type vs. footprint types vs.
>> > > "footprint-type"
>> > > > > > -See also "Country Code" footprint type and "IPv4CIDR" and
>> > > "IPv6CIDR" footprint types.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Footprint-value vs. footprint value
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Union Footprint type
>> > > > > > "Footprintunion" footprint type
>> > > > > > "Footprintunion" object
>> > > > > > Footprint object of type "footprint union"
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > [SM/NS] We are comparing the draft with previous RFCs and
>> trying to
>> > > come up wit a consistent scheme for different use cases
>> > > > > > 1) "Footprint Type": "type" should  be in lower case unless it
>> is
>> > > part of the section header
>> > > > > > 2)  "footprint-type": the dash is OK when it is part of an
>> anchor or
>> > > when it stand for the property name (in the different examples)
>> > > > > > 3) "Footprint Union": should be capitalized
>> > > > > > 4) "footprintunion" should be used in some cases - we are
>> trying to
>> > > understand where
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > c) Subdivision
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Subdivision Code Footprint Type
>> > > > > > a footprint object of type "subdivisioncode"
>> > > > > > SUBDIVISION Domain (and SUBDIVISION domain)
>> > > > > > country Subdivision code vs. Country Subdivision codes
>> > > > > > subdivisioncode vs. subdivision code
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > [SM/NS] this case is similar to the "Footprint Union" case. We
>> will
>> > > work on it and would update
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > 2) For the following terms, would you like to match their use
>> in past
>> > > > > > RFCs, specifically RFC 8006?  Please review the various styles
>> that
>> > > > > > appear in the document currently and our suggested updates to
>> > > > > > make those forms consistent throughout the document and with RFC
>> > > 8006.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Current:
>> > > > > > Country Code vs. countrycode vs. country code
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Perhaps:
>> > > > > >   countrycode
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Current:
>> > > > > >   ipv4cidr vs. IPv4CIDR
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Perhaps:
>> > > > > >   ipv4cidr
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Current:
>> > > > > >   ipv6cidr vs. IPv6CIDR
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Perhaps:
>> > > > > >   ipv6cidr
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > -->
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > [SM/NS] This is again the "footprint union" vs. "footprintunion"
>> > > issue. We will find a consistent usage
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > 9) <!--[rfced]Please review the uses of the word "match"
>> throughout
>> > > the document.
>> > > > > > In some places, it is not clear that the constraint does not
>> have to
>> > > > > > match both patterns given.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > [rfced] We have updated the examples below as suggested.  Please
>> let
>> > > us know if any further occurrences of “match” need changes.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Examples with some possible updates to help the reader.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Original:
>> > > > > > The Footprint Object in this example creates a
>> > > > > > constraint matching clients in the states of New Jersey and New
>> York,
>> > > > > > USA (ISO [ISO3166-2] codes "US-NJ" and "US-NY", respectively).
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Perhaps:
>> > > > > > The Footprint Object in this example creates a
>> > > > > > constraint that matches clients in the state of either New
>> Jersey or
>> > > New York,
>> > > > > > (ISO [ISO3166-2] codes "US-NJ" and "US-NY", respectively).
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > [SM/NS]  Agreed
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Original:
>> > > > > > Using Footprint Objects of these types, one can define FCI
>> Capability
>> > > > > > Advertisement Object footprint constraints that match IPv4 or
>> IPv6
>> > > > > > clients.  However, the described "narrowing" semantic of the
>> > > Footprint
>> > > > > > Objects array, as described in Appendix B of [RFC8008],
>> prevents the
>> > > > > > usage of these objects together to create a footprint
>> constraint that
>> > > > > > matches IPv4 clients together with IPv6 clients.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Perhaps (adding "either...but not both", cutting "together", and
>> > > > > > combining the sentences):
>> > > > > > Using Footprint Objects of these types, one can
>> > > > > > define FCI Capability Advertisement Object footprint
>> constraints that
>> > > > > > match either IPv4 or IPv6 clients, but not both, due to the
>> > > described
>> > > > > > "narrowing" semantic of the Footprint Objects
>> > > > > > array (Appendix B of [RFC8008]) that prevents the usage of
>> > > > > > these objects together to create a footprint constraint that
>> matches
>> > > > > > IPv4 clients with IPv6 clients.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > [SM/NS] Agreed
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Original:
>> > > > > > Below is an example for an attempt at creating an object
>> matching
>> > > > > > IPv4 clients of subnet "192.0.2.0/24", as well as IPv6 clients
>> of
>> > > > > > subnet "2001:db8::/32".
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Perhaps:
>> > > > > > Below is an example attempting to create an object that matches
>> > > > > > IPv4 clients of subnet "192.0.2.0/24" as well as IPv6 clients
>> of
>> > > > > > subnet "2001:db8::/32".
>> > > > > > -->
>> > > > > > [SM/NS] Agreed
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > 10) <!--[rfced] Please review the following with regard to ISO
>> > > citations.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > a) Is ISO 3166-2 the name of the code?  If not, perhaps the
>> following
>> > > > > > change would be helpful to the reader.  Note that there may be
>> more
>> > > > > > occurences, please review all as this is simply an example.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Original:
>> > > > > >   The "subdivisioncode" data type specified in Section 2.1.1.1
>> > > > > >   describes a country-specific subdivision using an [ISO3166-2]
>> code.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Perhaps:
>> > > > > >   The "subdivisioncode" data type specified in Section 2.1.1.1
>> > > > > >   describes a country-specific subdivision using a code
>> described in
>> > > > > >   [ISO3166-2].
>> > > > > > [SM/NS]
>> > > > > > Maybe:
>> > > > > > The "subdivisioncode" data type specified in Section 2.1.1.1
>> > > > > >   describes a country-specific subdivision using a code as
>> defined in
>> > > > > >   [ISO3166-2].
>> > > > >
>> > > > > [rfced] Thank you for this guidance. Please review other similar
>> > > instances throughout the doc and let us know if/how they may be
>> updated
>> > > using old/new text.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > 11) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this
>> > > document
>> > > > > > should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container
>> for
>> > > > > > content that is semantically less important or tangential to the
>> > > > > > content that surrounds it" (
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__authors.ietf.org_en_rfcxml-2Dvocabulary-23aside&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=aNcD_pgXb5qjTllxyCe5MJQgRTzMv518ReluUd8bmm0&e=
>> > > ).
>> > > > > > -->
>> > > > > > [NS] I do not fully understand the point here.
>> > > > > > Will try to read more about it, but if you can give more
>> details/an
>> > > example it would greatly assist me.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > [rfced]  You may find more info at
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__authors.ietf.org_rfcxml-2Dvocabulary-23aside&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=1M4B3QCqA-VdOlGvuDQx_ARDiekvCjXUnsFEl3YM6OM&e=
>> > > .
>> > > > >
>> > > > > ______________
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Updated XML file:
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.xml&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=rnI8C1TMJM7slUpITW4U5Vdm5ztUEavWyIDN1E3AAfM&e=
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Updated output files:
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.txt&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=IieWbMjKlQyOjbotwBn4pWyKdVhg6OHEvOZ_92Fxpac&e=
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=OsOtC3a1iG3EgG5MI90EvAiIm5JQfFFZTLCCfOi2FjU&e=
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=5RUZa-waUbT9MLHL6Uk72KiqqboJpZRPGtNhb1I_XhM&e=
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Dauth48diff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=UKF29gl7ddwUQLv3EBUGmwRVHlWi-Pb4MFMgVeu08GA&e=
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Diff files showing all changes:
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Ddiff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=hyrRs85zhPo4vN4YB01d1PryXreU2Y-TFs1wADaivqE&e=
>> > >
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Drfcdiff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=SQiCq6D5pEFep56sVnJKK7eYV2HQh5AOE40pMme0PDg&e=
>> > > (side-by-side rfcdiff)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_auth48_rfc9388&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=YlgKeXnxnaQB9jBO1Qvz99OclaLDY4kdfWGy0i_IFEw&e=
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thank you,
>> > > > > RFC Editor/rv
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > On Jun 27, 2023, at 10:48 PM, Nir Sopher <[e-mail]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Hi Megan,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > All the changes look great. Thank you.  That said, we do have
>> > > two-more changes (sorry).  The first change is the reworded Abstract.
>> We
>> > > feel this will make it easier for the reader to follow the work done
>> in
>> > > this document (the original wording can be hard to follow). You may
>> find
>> > > grammatical nits here but otherwise the abstract is contextually the
>> same
>> > > as the current version.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > The Second change is a slight correction in paragraph 2.2.
>> This we
>> > > think should be our final changes. Following are the changes proposed:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Abstract:
>> > > > > > NEW:
>> > > > > > Open Caching architecture is a use case of Content Delivery
>> Network
>> > > Interconnection (CDNI) in which the commercial Content Delivery
>> Network
>> > > (CDN) is the upstream CDN (uCDN) and the ISP caching layer serves as
>> the
>> > > downstream CDN (dCDN). RFC 8006 defines footprint types which are
>> used for
>> > > footprint objects as part of the Metadata interface (MI). The
>> footprint
>> > > types are also used for the Footprint & Capabilities Advertisement
>> > > interface (FCI) as defined in RFC 8008. This document defines two new
>> > > footprint types, the first footprint type defined is an ISO3166-2
>> country
>> > > subdivision code. Defining subdivision code improves granularity as
>> > > compared to the ISO3166-1 country code footprint type, defined in RFC
>> > > 8006.  The ISO3166-2 country subdivision code is also added as a new
>> entity
>> > > domain type in the "ALTO Entity Domain Types" subregistry as defined
>> in
>> > > Section 7.4 of RFC 9241. The second footprint type defines a footprint
>> > > union to aggregate footprint objects. This allows for an additive
>> semantics
>> > > over the narrowing semantics defined in Appendix B of RFC 8008. This
>> > > updates RFC 8008. The two new footprint types are based on the
>> requirements
>> > > raised by Open Caching, but are also applicable to CDNI use cases in
>> > > general.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Section 2.2
>> > > > > > The second paragraph starts with:
>> > > > > > OLD:
>> > > > > > Sections 4.3.5 and 4.3.6 of [RFC8006] specify the IPv4 CIDR and
>> the
>> > > IPv6 CIDR footprint types
>> > > > > > Where it should be changed to:
>> > > > > > NEW:
>> > > > > > Sections 4.3.5 and 4.3.6 of [RFC8006] specify the "ipv4cidr"
>> and the
>> > > "ipv6cidr" footprint types
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > After these changes, the document is approved by both of us.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Cheers,
>> > > > > > Sanjay & Nir
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 7:04 PM Nir Sopher <[e-mail]
>> >
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > > Thanks for pushing it forward,
>> > > > > > Will further review at the beginning of next week.
>> > > > > > Have a nice weekend.
>> > > > > > Nir
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 12:28 AM Megan Ferguson <
>> [e-mail]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Sanjay and Nir (and *ADs),
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > [*ADs - please review and approve the author-submitted changes
>> to
>> > > our question #1 below.]
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Thank you for your replies.  We have updated the document based
>> on
>> > > your comments below.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Please also note that we have incorporated some responses marked
>> > > with [rfced] in the mail below (items closed out have been snipped).
>> Please
>> > > let us know if we can be of further assistance with any of the
>> outstanding
>> > > issues.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >   The files have been posted here:
>> > > > > >
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.txt&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=IieWbMjKlQyOjbotwBn4pWyKdVhg6OHEvOZ_92Fxpac&e=
>> > > > > >
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=OsOtC3a1iG3EgG5MI90EvAiIm5JQfFFZTLCCfOi2FjU&e=
>> > > > > >
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=5RUZa-waUbT9MLHL6Uk72KiqqboJpZRPGtNhb1I_XhM&e=
>> > > > > >
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388.xml&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=rnI8C1TMJM7slUpITW4U5Vdm5ztUEavWyIDN1E3AAfM&e=
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >   The relevant diff files have been posted here:
>> > > > > >
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Ddiff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=hyrRs85zhPo4vN4YB01d1PryXreU2Y-TFs1wADaivqE&e=
>> > > (comprehensive diff)
>> > > > > >
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Drfcdiff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=SQiCq6D5pEFep56sVnJKK7eYV2HQh5AOE40pMme0PDg&e=
>> > > (comprehensive rfcdiff)
>> > > > > >
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9388-2Dauth48diff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=UKF29gl7ddwUQLv3EBUGmwRVHlWi-Pb4MFMgVeu08GA&e=
>> > > (AUTH48 changes only)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >   The AUTH48 status page is viewable here:
>> > > > > >
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_auth48_rfc9388&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=YlgKeXnxnaQB9jBO1Qvz99OclaLDY4kdfWGy0i_IFEw&e=
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Thank you.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > RFC Editor/mf
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Jun 16, 2023, at 9:26 AM, Mishra, Sanjay <
>> > > [e-mail]> wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Hello there is a slight update from our last response RE the
>> > > [OC-RR].
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > The webpage administrator confirms the version is 2.0 (already
>> > > confirmed) but that Thomas Edwards name in the webpage was erroneously
>> > > listed as one of the co-authors. The SVTA administrator will update
>> the
>> > > document webpage to reflect the document version as 2.0 and remove
>> Thomas
>> > > Edwards. Yoav Gressel as co-author is listed on the webpage and also
>> in the
>> > > document.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Thanks
>> > > > > > > Sanjay and Nir
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 4:09 PM Nir Sopher <
>> [e-mail]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > Hi,
>> > > > > > > And thank you very much for the comments.
>> > > > > > > See responses inline.
>> > > > > > > WRT item #8, #9, #12 we will do our best to prepare a new XML
>> with
>> > > the proper changes by the beginning of next week.
>> > > > > > > Many thanks,
>> > > > > > > Nir
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 6:22 AM <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > Authors and *AD,
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve
>> (as
>> > > necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > 1) <!--[rfced] *AD - Should RFC 9241 be added to this
>> document's
>> > > header as being updated by this document?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > We see the following in the Abstract:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > "This document also supplements RFC 9241 with relevant ALTO
>> entity
>> > > > > > > domain types."
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > And in the document announcement message (see
>> > > > > > >
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dcdni-2Dadditional-2Dfootprint-2Dtypes_writeup_&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=EAl7D2D-HAbXpNeMnyvElnb0BM62XGZaAoG7mfZEveo&e=
>> > > ):
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > "The document also updates RFC 9241 with relevant ALTO entity
>> > > > > > > domain types."
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > The current header only indicates RFC 8008 as being updated by
>> > > this document.
>> > > > > > > Please advise.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > -->
>> > > > > > > [NS/SM]
>> > > > > > > We think it would be best to change the wording a bit:
>> > > > > > > Original:
>> > > > > > > This document also supplements RFC 9241 with relevant ALTO
>> entity
>> > > domain types.
>> > > > > > > Suggested:
>> > > > > > > Furthermore, this document defines a new entity domain type
>> > > registered in the ALTO Entity Domain Types Registry, as defined in
>> section
>> > > 7.4 of RFC 9241.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > [rfced] *AD - please confirm that the updates to the text of the
>> > > Abstract are the correct action here.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that
>> > > appear in the title) for use on
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=H-DXaaooMlmFo5W3UAuSjRt_Fy-dd-mEaPEILis6hkE&e=
>> > > .
>> > > > > > > org/search. -->
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > [SM/NS]
>> > > > > > > Can you please clarify?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > [rfced] If there are any keywords you think readers might want
>> to
>> > > search when they look for documents on this topic, and the words are
>> not
>> > > already in the title, we can add them to our database.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > 6) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions about text in
>> the
>> > > Table in
>> > > > > > >      Section 4.1.  Note that we will communicate any necessary
>> > > changes
>> > > > > > >      to IANA upon completion of AUTH48.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > a) What does "hyphen-minus" mean?  Is this trying to
>> communicate
>> > > that
>> > > > > > > some people might call it a hyphen and some might say minus
>> sign?
>> > > Or
>> > > > > > > something else?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > [SM/NS]
>> > > > > > > We can drop the "-minus" and leave only the "hyphen".
>> > > > > > > Note that we took the "hyphen-minus" terminology for the
>> actual
>> > > ISO defining the country subdivision values:
>> > > > > > > See
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.iso.org_obp_ui_-23iso-3Astd-3Aiso-3A3166-3A-2D2-3Aed-2D4-3Av1-3Aen&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=gGyH0z2JR4_54vqv0BBl6b5AL58HCWllGcPr3Cs9-7E&e=
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > b) Is this spacing correct?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Original:
>> > > > > > > Characters from A-Z;0-9
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Perhaps:
>> > > > > > > Characters from A-Z and 0-9
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > -->
>> > > > > > > [SM/NS]
>> > > > > > >  For the ease of reading we agree with your suggestion.
>> > > > > > > Yet again, this was copied from the ISO defining the values
>> > > structure
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > [rfced] We have left both of the above as they were.  Thank you
>> for
>> > > providing background on these choices.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > 7) <!-- [rfced] For reference [OC-RR], the provided URL
>> points to
>> > > a page
>> > > > > > >      that shows the document being both Version 2.0 and 2.1.
>> Which
>> > > > > > >      version is correct?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Also, the provided URL shows two more contributors: Thomas
>> Edwards
>> > > and
>> > > > > > > Yoav Gressel. Would you like these to be added to the
>> reference as
>> > > > > > > authors?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Original:
>> > > > > > >    [OC-RR]    Finkelman, O., Ed., Hofmann, J., Klein, E.,
>> Mishra,
>> > > S.,
>> > > > > > >               Ma, K., Sahar, D., and B. Zurat, "Open Caching -
>> > > Request
>> > > > > > >               Routing Functional Specification", Version 2.0,
>> 15
>> > > January
>> > > > > > >               2021, <
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.svta.org_product_open-2Dcache-2Drequest-2D&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=WhHa9lNnA0TysADGsuVn07x3jcJhEwjEINW6NhaL9FY&e=
>> > > > > > >               routing-functional-specification/>.
>> > > > > > > Perhaps:
>> > > > > > >    [OC-RR]    Finkelman, O., Ed., Zurat, B., Sahar, D.,
>> Klein, E.,
>> > > > > > >               Hofmann, J., Ma, K.J., Stock, M., Mishra, S.,
>> > > Edwards, T.,
>> > > > > > >               and Y. Yoav, "Open Caching - Request Routing
>> > > Functional
>> > > > > > >               Specification", Version 2.0, 15 January 2021,
>> > > > > > >               <
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.svta.org_product_open-2Dcache-2Drequest-2Drouting-2D&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=Fae8JNp_La87atc_-iT7-guUyp6yGpEQYdMzUNiBcdY&e=
>> > > > > > >               functional-specification/>.
>> > > > > > > -->
>> > > > > > > [SM/NS]
>> > > > > > > We will stick to version 2.0
>> > > > > > > We are working to get the OC-RR webpage updated to reflect
>> version
>> > > 2.0.
>> > > > > > > We would also push forward adding Thomas Edwards to the
>> authors
>> > > list (Yoav is already listed in the document).
>> > > > > > > Please note that in the proposal Yoav was added as "Y. Yoav"
>> > > instead of "G. Yoav" or to be consistent "Gressel, Y.”
>> > > > > > [rfced] Please review our updates to ensure that this reference
>> now
>> > > appears as desired.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > 8) <!-- [rfced] Terminology: Throughout the document, we
>> spotted
>> > > the
>> > > > > > >      following issues related to terminology.  Please review
>> each
>> > > > > > >      question below and let us know how to update, using
>> old/new
>> > > where
>> > > > > > >      necessary.  Note that you are welcome to update the xml
>> file
>> > > > > > >      itself if that is easier than explaining the changes via
>> > > email.
>> > > > > > [rfced] We made these updates based on
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__author-2Dtools.ietf.org_iddiff-3Furl1-3Ddraft-2Dietf-2Dcdni-2Dadditional-2Dfootprint-2Dtypes-2D11-26url2-3Ddraft-2Dietf-2Dcdni-2Dadditional-2Dfootprint-2Dtypes-2D12-26difftype-3D-2D-2Dhwdiff&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=Z1AcNQijBUwEzbxLmx0zS3S9_ix4Q4-tcdsIllVGvSc&e=
>> > > .
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > 1) Please review the way that the following terms appear
>> > > throughout the document
>> > > > > > > with regard to capitalization, hyphenation, quotation,
>> spacing,
>> > > phrasing, etc. and let us know
>> > > > > > > if/how we may make these terms consistent:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > a) object vs. Object
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > CDNI Footprint object vs. CNDI Footprint Object
>> > > > > > > Footprint Objects vs. Footprint objects vs. footprint objects
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > (Note that RFC 8006 uses Footprint object)
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > [SM/NS] we changed all instances to lower case "object"
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > b) Footprint, Footprint Types, Footprint Values, Footprint
>> Union
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > footprint (as a general noun)
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Footprint Types vs. footprint-type vs. footprint types vs.
>> > > "footprint-type"
>> > > > > > > -See also "Country Code" footprint type and "IPv4CIDR" and
>> > > "IPv6CIDR" footprint types.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Footprint-value vs. footprint value
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Union Footprint type
>> > > > > > > "Footprintunion" footprint type
>> > > > > > > "Footprintunion" object
>> > > > > > > Footprint object of type "footprint union"
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > [SM/NS] We are comparing the draft with previous RFCs and
>> trying
>> > > to come up wit a consistent scheme for different use cases
>> > > > > > > 1) "Footprint Type": "type" should  be in lower case unless
>> it is
>> > > part of the section header
>> > > > > > > 2)  "footprint-type": the dash is OK when it is part of an
>> anchor
>> > > or when it stand for the property name (in the different examples)
>> > > > > > > 3) "Footprint Union": should be capitalized
>> > > > > > > 4) "footprintunion" should be used in some cases - we are
>> trying
>> > > to understand where
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > c) Subdivision
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Subdivision Code Footprint Type
>> > > > > > > a footprint object of type "subdivisioncode"
>> > > > > > > SUBDIVISION Domain (and SUBDIVISION domain)
>> > > > > > > country Subdivision code vs. Country Subdivision codes
>> > > > > > > subdivisioncode vs. subdivision code
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > [SM/NS] this case is similar to the "Footprint Union" case. We
>> > > will work on it and would update
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > 2) For the following terms, would you like to match their use
>> in
>> > > past
>> > > > > > > RFCs, specifically RFC 8006?  Please review the various
>> styles that
>> > > > > > > appear in the document currently and our suggested updates to
>> > > > > > > make those forms consistent throughout the document and with
>> RFC
>> > > 8006.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Current:
>> > > > > > > Country Code vs. countrycode vs. country code
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Perhaps:
>> > > > > > >    countrycode
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Current:
>> > > > > > >    ipv4cidr vs. IPv4CIDR
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Perhaps:
>> > > > > > >    ipv4cidr
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Current:
>> > > > > > >    ipv6cidr vs. IPv6CIDR
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Perhaps:
>> > > > > > >    ipv6cidr
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > -->
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > [SM/NS] This is again the "footprint union" vs.
>> "footprintunion"
>> > > issue. We will find a consistent usage
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > 9) <!--[rfced]Please review the uses of the word "match"
>> > > throughout the document.
>> > > > > > > In some places, it is not clear that the constraint does not
>> have
>> > > to
>> > > > > > > match both patterns given.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > [rfced] We have updated the examples below as suggested.
>> Please let
>> > > us know if any further occurrences of “match” need changes.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Examples with some possible updates to help the reader.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Original:
>> > > > > > > The Footprint Object in this example creates a
>> > > > > > > constraint matching clients in the states of New Jersey and
>> New
>> > > York,
>> > > > > > > USA (ISO [ISO3166-2] codes "US-NJ" and "US-NY", respectively).
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Perhaps:
>> > > > > > > The Footprint Object in this example creates a
>> > > > > > > constraint that matches clients in the state of either New
>> Jersey
>> > > or New York,
>> > > > > > > (ISO [ISO3166-2] codes "US-NJ" and "US-NY", respectively).
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > [SM/NS]  Agreed
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Original:
>> > > > > > > Using Footprint Objects of these types, one can define FCI
>> > > Capability
>> > > > > > > Advertisement Object footprint constraints that match IPv4 or
>> IPv6
>> > > > > > > clients.  However, the described "narrowing" semantic of the
>> > > Footprint
>> > > > > > > Objects array, as described in Appendix B of [RFC8008],
>> prevents
>> > > the
>> > > > > > > usage of these objects together to create a footprint
>> constraint
>> > > that
>> > > > > > > matches IPv4 clients together with IPv6 clients.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Perhaps (adding "either...but not both", cutting "together",
>> and
>> > > > > > > combining the sentences):
>> > > > > > > Using Footprint Objects of these types, one can
>> > > > > > > define FCI Capability Advertisement Object footprint
>> constraints
>> > > that
>> > > > > > > match either IPv4 or IPv6 clients, but not both, due to the
>> > > described
>> > > > > > > "narrowing" semantic of the Footprint Objects
>> > > > > > > array (Appendix B of [RFC8008]) that prevents the usage of
>> > > > > > > these objects together to create a footprint constraint that
>> > > matches
>> > > > > > > IPv4 clients with IPv6 clients.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > [SM/NS] Agreed
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Original:
>> > > > > > > Below is an example for an attempt at creating an object
>> matching
>> > > > > > > IPv4 clients of subnet "192.0.2.0/24", as well as IPv6
>> clients of
>> > > > > > > subnet "2001:db8::/32".
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Perhaps:
>> > > > > > > Below is an example attempting to create an object that
>> matches
>> > > > > > > IPv4 clients of subnet "192.0.2.0/24" as well as IPv6
>> clients of
>> > > > > > > subnet "2001:db8::/32".
>> > > > > > > -->
>> > > > > > > [SM/NS] Agreed
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > 10) <!--[rfced] Please review the following with regard to ISO
>> > > citations.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > a) Is ISO 3166-2 the name of the code?  If not, perhaps the
>> > > following
>> > > > > > > change would be helpful to the reader.  Note that there may
>> be more
>> > > > > > > occurences, please review all as this is simply an example.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Original:
>> > > > > > >    The "subdivisioncode" data type specified in Section
>> 2.1.1.1
>> > > > > > >    describes a country-specific subdivision using an
>> [ISO3166-2]
>> > > code.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Perhaps:
>> > > > > > >    The "subdivisioncode" data type specified in Section
>> 2.1.1.1
>> > > > > > >    describes a country-specific subdivision using a code
>> described
>> > > in
>> > > > > > >    [ISO3166-2].
>> > > > > > > [SM/NS]
>> > > > > > > Maybe:
>> > > > > > > The "subdivisioncode" data type specified in Section 2.1.1.1
>> > > > > > >    describes a country-specific subdivision using a code as
>> > > defined in
>> > > > > > >    [ISO3166-2].
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > [rfced] Thank you for this guidance. Please review other similar
>> > > instances throughout the doc and let us know if/how they may be
>> updated
>> > > using old/new text.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > 11) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in
>> this
>> > > document
>> > > > > > > should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a
>> container
>> > > for
>> > > > > > > content that is semantically less important or tangential to
>> the
>> > > > > > > content that surrounds it" (
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__authors.ietf.org_en_rfcxml-2Dvocabulary-23aside&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=aNcD_pgXb5qjTllxyCe5MJQgRTzMv518ReluUd8bmm0&e=
>> > > ).
>> > > > > > > -->
>> > > > > > > [NS] I do not fully understand the point here.
>> > > > > > > Will try to read more about it, but if you can give more
>> > > details/an example it would greatly assist me.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > [rfced]  You may find more info at
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__authors.ietf.org_rfcxml-2Dvocabulary-23aside&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=1M4B3QCqA-VdOlGvuDQx_ARDiekvCjXUnsFEl3YM6OM&e=
>> > > .
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > 12) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language"
>> portion of
>> > > the online
>> > > > > > > Style Guide <
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_styleguide_part2_-23inclusive-5Flanguage&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=7x1Jn1xJ1hiMoAjgIuWr_Sf8lm2sMn9H7G4w4qDDFHE&e=
>> > > >
>> > > > > > > and let us know if any changes are needed.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but
>> > > this should
>> > > > > > > still be reviewed as a best practice.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > [rfced] Sounds like this issue has been reviewed.
>> > > > > > > -->
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Thank you.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > RFC Editor/st/mf
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > *****IMPORTANT*****
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Updated 2023/06/06
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > RFC Author(s):
>> > > > > > > --------------
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Instructions for Completing AUTH48
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been
>> reviewed
>> > > and
>> > > > > > > approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an
>> > > RFC.
>> > > > > > > If an author is no longer available, there are several
>> remedies
>> > > > > > > available as listed in the FAQ (
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_faq_&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=7YSpqlsTHjcQ8YAMJVyrVR0YMbLdYc3DdARILwjNU18&e=
>> > > ).
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other
>> parties
>> > > > > > > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before
>> > > providing
>> > > > > > > your approval.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Planning your review
>> > > > > > > ---------------------
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Please review the following aspects of your document:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > *  RFC Editor questions
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >    Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC
>> > > Editor
>> > > > > > >    that have been included in the XML file as comments marked
>> as
>> > > > > > >    follows:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >    <!-- [rfced] ... -->
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >    These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > *  Changes submitted by coauthors
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >    Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
>> > > > > > >    coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you
>> > > > > > >    agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > *  Content
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >    Please review the full content of the document, as this
>> cannot
>> > > > > > >    change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular
>> > > attention to:
>> > > > > > >    - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
>> > > > > > >    - contact information
>> > > > > > >    - references
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > *  Copyright notices and legends
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >    Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined
>> in
>> > > > > > >    RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
>> > > > > > >    (TLP –
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__trustee.ietf.org_license-2Dinfo_&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=FPbPNwV_sBzKZwXzYYsn5P7i_GvEU6TboolWuZe7ucs&e=
>> > > ).
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > *  Semantic markup
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >    Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that
>> > > elements of
>> > > > > > >    content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that
>> > > <sourcecode>
>> > > > > > >    and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at
>> > > > > > >    <
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__authors.ietf.org_rfcxml-2Dvocabulary&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=jiL_Sr4EDl2qOhOY6k9Sln40SY7AmjfBtkoI40bIdDM&e=
>> > > >.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > *  Formatted output
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >    Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that
>> the
>> > > > > > >    formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML
>> file,
>> > > is
>> > > > > > >    reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting
>> > > > > > >    limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Submitting changes
>> > > > > > > ------------------
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY
>> ALL’ as
>> > > all
>> > > > > > > the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The
>> > > parties
>> > > > > > > include:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >    *  your coauthors
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >    *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >    *  other document participants, depending on the stream
>> (e.g.,
>> > > > > > >       IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs,
>> the
>> > > > > > >       responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >    *  [e-mail], which is a new archival
>> > > mailing list
>> > > > > > >       to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active
>> > > discussion
>> > > > > > >       list:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >      *  More info:
>> > > > > > >
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mailarchive.ietf.org_arch_msg_ietf-2Dannounce_yb6lpIGh-2D4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=L4yMi5CKgKNJMXGv4Li8mt_atMJqPTgNPvk3h8Q1bVo&e=
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >      *  The archive itself:
>> > > > > > >
>> > >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mailarchive.ietf.org_arch_browse_auth48archive_&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=vqL67r-dxlTLD00nLimEoRk-HnqUkkR4Y7TKyggeyJ6irSZTN_vOgS4gSbY0uOL7&s=hYct6pa-QRA4O44GNKSxOisHQoCUPq2SmCw6pbcY5R4&e=
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >      *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may
>> temporarily
>> > > opt out
>> > > > > > >         of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a
>> sensitive
>> > > matter).
>> > > > > > >         If needed, please add a note at the top of the message
>> > > that you
>> > > > > > >         have dropped the address. When the discussion is
>> > > concluded,
>> > > > > > >         [e-mail] will be re-added to the
>> CC
>> > > list and
>> > > > > > >         its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > An update to the provided XML file
>> > > > > > >  — OR —
>> > > > > > > An explicit list of changes in this format
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Section # (or indicate Global)
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > OLD:
>> > > > > > > old text
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > NEW:
>> > > > > > > new text
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an
>> > > explicit
>> > > > > > > list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes
>> > > that seem
>> > > > > > > beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text,
>> deletion
>> > > of text,
>> > > > > > > and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can
>> be
>> > > found in
>> > > > > > > the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a
>> stream
>> > > manager.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Approving for publication
>> > > > > > > --------------------------
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this
>> email
>> > > stating
>> > > > > > > that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY
>> ALL’,
>> > > > > > > as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your
>> approval
>>
>>