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

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

Hi Rebecca - Yes, it works now. I can see the changes in the pdf.

Thank you and have a good weekend.

-Sanjay

On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 6:44 PM Rebecca VanRheenen <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Sanjay,
>
> The pdf looks correct to me. Could you try opening it again or refreshing?
>
> Thanks!
> Rebecca
>
>
> > On Jul 7, 2023, at 2:17 PM, Mishra, Sanjay <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rebecca - Thank you so much for the quick turnaround. BTW, only the
> pdf link does not show the new changes but other links and xml file shows
> the updates you made. Maybe the link to the pdf needs to be refreshed?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Sanjay
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 5:12 PM Rebecca VanRheenen <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > Hi Sanjay,
> >
> > Thanks for your reply! I updated the document title and the title of
> Figure 1. The updated files are listed below.
> >
> > 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=64pv06h1RFVaMjjEIgOCbOKctBImDTZ1WabFbOHBpebRfU4UlNX10Sxs0nDhb2oE&s=XYF5CpyIJS7Y4PafKrMaUEC07gRS1xgqK-2ZPjS-2_E&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=64pv06h1RFVaMjjEIgOCbOKctBImDTZ1WabFbOHBpebRfU4UlNX10Sxs0nDhb2oE&s=0qWgs0e-Hrji0O99XmK5yLtanMhyk4F_Dwj1jjAtRrI&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=64pv06h1RFVaMjjEIgOCbOKctBImDTZ1WabFbOHBpebRfU4UlNX10Sxs0nDhb2oE&s=be485tSrWC2ny-4rGbjJ8GO1NIkCp2SS2qMT9csXYtg&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=64pv06h1RFVaMjjEIgOCbOKctBImDTZ1WabFbOHBpebRfU4UlNX10Sxs0nDhb2oE&s=589ymaWGYBE0mFvzMUe9bz89UiCbXGgFYtDMp7OCIlU&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=64pv06h1RFVaMjjEIgOCbOKctBImDTZ1WabFbOHBpebRfU4UlNX10Sxs0nDhb2oE&s=FY-sdfdJMvAeUaOVDZ0R_nffhXqm1dPbnFxnJsldTC0&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=64pv06h1RFVaMjjEIgOCbOKctBImDTZ1WabFbOHBpebRfU4UlNX10Sxs0nDhb2oE&s=7xD7zo2zoZmrjXi_Ug2m-OzTDgc73SgEq14d0dHLEM0&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=64pv06h1RFVaMjjEIgOCbOKctBImDTZ1WabFbOHBpebRfU4UlNX10Sxs0nDhb2oE&s=ZTzncWOXtM4pWewmyvy31mRe2oqUBg7J1sSOS0-jfjs&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=64pv06h1RFVaMjjEIgOCbOKctBImDTZ1WabFbOHBpebRfU4UlNX10Sxs0nDhb2oE&s=NKfZ753inFmQxG-vYanZ2tA1cBTANjLQH2hd-4wTs6s&e=
> >
> > Thank you,
> > RFC Editor/rv
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 7, 2023, at 12:42 PM, Mishra, Sanjay <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Rebecca - Thank you for the updates and also finding a couple more
> instances where we did not add  country before subdivision. Please go-ahead
> and update both instances, to keep it consistent.
> > >
> > > you wrote:
> > > The only instances of "subdivision code” not prefaced by “country” are
> in the document title and tile of Figure 1 (see below). Are these instances
> okay as is? Or should "Subdivision Code” be updated to “Country Subdivision
> Code”?
> > >
> > > Current:
> > >     Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) Footprint Types:
> > >                   Subdivision Code and Footprint Union
> > >
> > >      Figure 1: Illustration of Subdivision Code Footprint Advertisement
> > >
> > > [SM]: Yes, please update the title and the caption in Figure 1.
> > >
> > > After this question is addressed, we will wait for Murray’s approval.
> We will then request that IANA update the registry to match the edited
> document.
> > > [SM]: ACK.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Sanjay
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 2:36 PM Rebecca VanRheenen <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > > Hi Nir and Sanjay,
> > >
> > > We have noted your approvals on the AUTH48 status page for this
> document (see
> 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=BXB1rlBmF0aV-ERrKPFhyrRmJrVHQC7ruS2kbON1fu1lnWCa3gjj2UDjfi9FHyL9&s=eagG2WALHwQzlX7F0V6ldNS6nngds12CHCw7f_OA03A&e=
> ). Note that we have also addressed the issue in Section 2.1.1.1.
> > >
> > > The only instances of "subdivision code” not prefaced by “country” are
> in the document title and tile of Figure 1 (see below). Are these instances
> okay as is? Or should "Subdivision Code” be updated to “Country Subdivision
> Code”?
> > >
> > > Current:
> > >     Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) Footprint Types:
> > >                   Subdivision Code and Footprint Union
> > >
> > >      Figure 1: Illustration of Subdivision Code Footprint Advertisement
> > >
> > >
> > > After this question is addressed, we will wait for Murray’s approval.
> We will 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=BXB1rlBmF0aV-ERrKPFhyrRmJrVHQC7ruS2kbON1fu1lnWCa3gjj2UDjfi9FHyL9&s=N6E-CxIER_BZDxpmqE_t9RG2VhrIk1PkGssdpbAs3VE&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=BXB1rlBmF0aV-ERrKPFhyrRmJrVHQC7ruS2kbON1fu1lnWCa3gjj2UDjfi9FHyL9&s=kjCmUzBrAFq1z-gRLwXjfUmjBcBsKNVSNRgzL7PeXCg&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=BXB1rlBmF0aV-ERrKPFhyrRmJrVHQC7ruS2kbON1fu1lnWCa3gjj2UDjfi9FHyL9&s=IVxGDDKVWbs1g3C6wFvuqS6ISqIa0HVkhYPgk_r3F_Y&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=BXB1rlBmF0aV-ERrKPFhyrRmJrVHQC7ruS2kbON1fu1lnWCa3gjj2UDjfi9FHyL9&s=8M9UOlRVnrZ9y2IcfaoyJ_r3JFfg3W6PtgGqwiZz6r8&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=BXB1rlBmF0aV-ERrKPFhyrRmJrVHQC7ruS2kbON1fu1lnWCa3gjj2UDjfi9FHyL9&s=k0Sl7n32YQjH37N3KB9x55cSJwiN_7ZTmpZ1ADwWhXA&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=BXB1rlBmF0aV-ERrKPFhyrRmJrVHQC7ruS2kbON1fu1lnWCa3gjj2UDjfi9FHyL9&s=9aySZ6JzuQGXPPERmjvah-WWiAcRevNlV_kTME1gzvE&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=BXB1rlBmF0aV-ERrKPFhyrRmJrVHQC7ruS2kbON1fu1lnWCa3gjj2UDjfi9FHyL9&s=Aiwlihqely67tcgKVeyGMopfuvbD4ZtqBqOsTofZNek&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=BXB1rlBmF0aV-ERrKPFhyrRmJrVHQC7ruS2kbON1fu1lnWCa3gjj2UDjfi9FHyL9&s=x86XWXIefdj6lwEveWdS5E6PWFAQPBXSSTSRLTKgxq0&e=
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > RFC Editor/rv
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jul 5, 2023, at 8:59 PM, Nir Sopher <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Read the draft again and spotted another one...
> > > > Section 2.1.1.1
> > > > Old:
> > > > Example subdivision codes
> > > >
> > > > New:
> > > > Example country subdivision codes
> > > >
> > > > Other than that. Approved
> > > >
> > > > Thank you very much Rebecca for bearing with us on this entire
> process.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2023, 22:32 Mishra, Sanjay <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > > > Hi Rebecca - Thank you for updating the links.
> > > >
> > > > I have reviewed all changes and everything looks good. You have
> updated based on the last set of open comments.
> > > >
> > > > I approve the document from my side.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Sanjay
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 3:51 PM Rebecca VanRheenen <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > Hi Sanjay,
> > > >
> > > > Big apologies! The links should be correct now.
> > > >
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > > RFC Editor/rv
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Jul 5, 2023, at 12:47 PM, Mishra, Sanjay <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Rebecca - The attached links do not reflect the new edits we
> sent in the previous email. Can you please double check if you accepted
> those new edits from today?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Sanjay
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 2:50 PM 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=6YjTPJMx6FaWzW3P4WN6X3l1nIqmgrk6ACobUKckVXL6asNjqJqvJATb4I9NBCFS&s=HL_k2FBc8HR_Rh4II2LfL6GTpggBvky-SmSIJ9e1iFI&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=6YjTPJMx6FaWzW3P4WN6X3l1nIqmgrk6ACobUKckVXL6asNjqJqvJATb4I9NBCFS&s=oTQ4yplRHPOlkfhEUL7hyZu9Gv-rHuGuCI6aENGVUug&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=6YjTPJMx6FaWzW3P4WN6X3l1nIqmgrk6ACobUKckVXL6asNjqJqvJATb4I9NBCFS&s=x4I0YktiI_6vxXWk2iE1ibfg9f_FNcGg107QTVdtMFs&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=6YjTPJMx6FaWzW3P4WN6X3l1nIqmgrk6ACobUKckVXL6asNjqJqvJATb4I9NBCFS&s=B0Ewa_w0GbezCQUNTdpXTNsiuIKiPmDZ8yEyvylzo1E&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=6YjTPJMx6FaWzW3P4WN6X3l1nIqmgrk6ACobUKckVXL6asNjqJqvJATb4I9NBCFS&s=SzggdsRMRmrX4Jm3XkdaC8cxugjMS9ARuElvLeoPdnA&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=6YjTPJMx6FaWzW3P4WN6X3l1nIqmgrk6ACobUKckVXL6asNjqJqvJATb4I9NBCFS&s=HL_k2FBc8HR_Rh4II2LfL6GTpggBvky-SmSIJ9e1iFI&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=6YjTPJMx6FaWzW3P4WN6X3l1nIqmgrk6ACobUKckVXL6asNjqJqvJATb4I9NBCFS&s=ctNPEhMwSh9ZWk9yPcqzVplupYX0j8hdQb5b91RCn4Y&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=6YjTPJMx6FaWzW3P4WN6X3l1nIqmgrk6ACobUKckVXL6asNjqJqvJATb4I9NBCFS&s=9PfHRCuN3dmtcwcshEC9lQwZVyGSm3tR63ODkJIDOsQ&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=6YjTPJMx6FaWzW3P4WN6X3l1nIqmgrk6ACobUKckVXL6asNjqJqvJATb4I9NBCFS&s=gmcajv2nUCihGx0yqyK69mUW4bCDAR-P_6czkkjV_v0&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 som
> > >
> >
>
>