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

[[e-mail]]

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/):

"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.

-->


2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.
org/search. -->


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.
-->


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.
-->


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. 
-->


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?

b) Is this spacing correct?

Original:
Characters from A-Z;0-9

Perhaps:
Characters from A-Z and 0-9

-->


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-
              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-
              functional-specification/>.
-->


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)

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"


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


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 

-->


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).

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.


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".
-->


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].

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]).
-->


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).
-->


12) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online 
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
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/).

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/).

*  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>.

*  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
     
     *  The archive itself:
        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/

     *  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://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388.txt

Diff file of the text:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388-xmldiff1.html

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 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9388.form.xml


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9388

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