Re: [CDNi] Paul Wouters' No Objection on draft-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types-08: (with COMMENT)

[Nir Sopher <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Paul for your comments.

See response inline below.
Comments were addressed on v09.

Note that there is a typo (a redundant "title:" in figure 1 description),
and we are holding off releasing a corrected version in case of any
additional comments

Cheers
Nir


On Wed, Jan 4, 2023, 23:23 Paul Wouters via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types-08: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> # Sec AD review of draft-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types-07
>
> CC @paulwouters
>
> Please refer to
>
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
> This review uses the format specified in
> https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/
> which allows automated tools to process items (eg to produce github issues)
>
> ## COMMENTS
>
> ### Section 2.2
>
> In section 2.2, I would add a subscript line to the non-working figure to
> clarify to anyone skimming the document that this is not actually a
> supported
> configuration, eg:
>
> ```
> {
>   "capabilities": [
>     {
>       "capability-type": <CDNI capability object type>,
>       "capability-value": <CDNI capability object>,
>       "footprints": [
>           {
>               "footprint-type": "ipv4cidr",
>               "footprint-value": ["192.0.2.0/24"]
>           },
>           {
>               "footprint-type": "ipv6cidr",
>               "footprint-value": ["2001:db8::/32"]
>           }
>       ]
>     }
>   ]
> }
>
> Figure 2: Example of a non-working footprint object

Done

> ```
>
>
> Perhaps also number the other figures in the document with descriptive
> texts?
>
All figures were added with a title

>
> ### Security Considerations
> ```
> Therefore, to meet confidentiality requirements, the use of transport-layer
> security mechanisms as specified in Section 7 of [RFC8008] is expected. ```
>
> Instead of "is expected", why not "is RECOMMENDED" ? or "transport-layer
> security mechanisms as specified in Section 7 of [RFC8008] SHOULD be used."
>
Sentence was remove in v08

>
> ### NITS:
> ```
>     Section 7.2 of [RFC8006] creates the [...]
> ```
>
> This is already created, so either use "created" or use "specifies".
>
Specifies. Done