Re: [CDNi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types-00.txt

[Nir Sopher <[e-mail]>]

Hi Kevin,
Many thanks for the shepherd review.
I have integrated most of the comments.
Inline I relate to comments which were not taken as is.
Thanks again,
Nir

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 7:25 AM Kevin Ma <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
>   (As Chair) Having confirmed adoption of the footprint registration draft
> at the last meeting, I believe we all agreed that the contents are pretty
> straightforward and useful.  I don't see much additional work being
> required before issuing a WGLC.  As is our custom, I have done a
> preliminary shepherd review of the doc (Nir, please see my comments
> below).  I encourage everyone to please give the draft a read and send any
> questions, concerns, or suggestions to the list.  We will otherwise plan to
> issue a WGLC once the preliminary review comments have been addressed.
>
> thanx!
>
> --  Kevin J. Ma
>
> comments:
> ---------
>
> general:
> - "e.g." -> "e.g.,"
>
> abstract:
> - "supplements to the" -> "supplements the"
> - "as part of the Footprint & Capabilities Advertisement interface (FCI)
> defined in RFC 8008" -> "as part of the Footprint & Capabilities
> Advertisement interface (FCI) defined in RFC 8008 or the Metadata interface
> (MI) defined in RFC 8006"
>
 [NirS] Done but I changed the order: first the MI and afterwards the FCI

>
> section 1:
> - "registers CDNI Footprint and Capabilities objects[RFC8008]" ->
> "registers CDNI Footprint Types [RFC8006]"
> - "Footprints Types.  E.g." -> "Footprints Types, e.g.,"
>
> section 2:
> - "For consistency, this document follows the CDNI notation of uCDN for
> (the commercial CDN) and dCDN (the ISP caching layer)." -> remove?  this is
> redundant (already stated in section 1)?
>
> section 2.1:
> - "Here we define" -> "Herein is defined"
>
> section 2.1.2:
> - "Below is an adjustment for the example in Section 2.1.1, now embedding
> a footprint object of type \"SubdivisionCode\"." -> "Below is an example
> using footprint objects of type \"SubdivisionCode\"." (section 2.1.1 of
> this draft does not make sense as a reference?)
> - "in Nova-Scotia province" -> "in the Nova-Scotia province"
>
> section 2.2:
> - "Meaning," -> "This implies that" ?
> - "define an FCI Capability Advertisement Object footprint constraints" ->
> "define FCI Capability Advertisement Object footprint constraints"
> - "in order" -> remove?
> - "results with an" -> "results in an"
> - "limitation, and" -> "limitation and"
> - "constraints that matches" -> "constraints that match"
> - "we introduce below" -> "below is introduced"
>
> section 2.2.1:
> - "It includes a footprint-type property and a footprint-value array
> values" -> "The footprint-value for a FootprintUnion object is an array of
> Footprint objects, where the Footprint objects may be of any Footprint Type
> other than FootprintUnion." we probably don't want to nest footprintunion?
>  do we want to allow duplicate type entries (e.g., multiple ipv4cidrs);
> it's inefficient, but doesn't break anything?
>
[NirS]  Duplicate type entries do not break anything, and I believe that
should be allowed for convenience (e.g., when joining together
subdivisions from Canada and the US, it might be more convenient to split
them into 2 objects by their country).
[NirS]  I would still want to further think about the nested
footprint unions.

>
> section 2.2.2:
> - "Below is an adjustment for the example in Section 2.2.1, now embedding
> a footprint object of type \"footprintunion\"." -> "Below is an example
> using a footprint object of type \"footprintunion\"." (section 2.2.1 of
> this draft does not make sense as a reference?)
> - "An additional example is the collection" -> "Below is an additional
> example for the union" ?
> - ", as well as Nova-Scotia province" -> "and the Nova-Scotia province"
>
[NirS] Paragraph rephrase:
The footprint union also allows to compose a countrycode and
subdivisioncode based footprint objects. In the example below we create a
constraint covering autonomous system 64496 within the US (ISO [ISO3166- 1]
alpha-2 code "US") and the Nova-Scotia province of Canada (ISO [ISO3166-2]
code "CA-NS").

>
> section 3.1:
> - "As described in section 7.2 of [RFC8006] , the \"CDNI Metadata
> Footprint Types\" subregistry was created" -> "Section 7.2 of [RFC8006]
> creates the \"CDNI Metadata Footprint Types\" subregistry"
> - "The created namespace defines the valid values for Footprint Object
> Types, and is already populated with the types described in Section 4.2.2.2
> of [RFC8006] ."  remove?  unnecessary information
> - "two additional footprint type as" -> "two additional Footprint Types"
> - "Footprint Object as specified in [RFC8006]" -> "Footprint Type Union" ?
>
[NirS] I believe it should stay as is: where the format of the elements
listed is described - similar to the table in RFC 8006
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8006#section-7.2>. What do you
think?
[NirS] I also modified the description on the FCI.subdivision footprint type:
"ISO 3166-2 Subdivision Code: An alpha-2 ISO 3166-1 Country Code, followed
by a separator and up to three alphanumeric characters"


>
> section 4:
> - "CDNI Request Routing: Footprint and Capabilities Semantics" -> "CDNI
> Metadata interface and the CDNI Request Routing: Footprint and Capabilities
> Semantics"
> - We should also add a Privacy section that acknowledges the potential
> leakage of private network topology information when providing footprint
> information, but note that this document only defines the datatype and not
> the transport, and that RFC8006 and RFC8008 require interface
> implementations implement confidentiality and authentication to prevent
> such data loss.
>
[NirS] Still TBD

>
> section 6.1:
> - do we really need terminology references to RFC8007 and RFC8804 ?
>
> section 6.2:
> - do we really need a terminology reference to RFC6707 ?
>
[NirS] I think this is where uCDN and dCDN are first defined (RRFC 7336
also points to it in this context) .
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 4:29 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the Content Delivery Networks
>> Interconnection WG of the IETF.
>>
>>         Title           : Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI)
>> Footprint Types: Subdivision Code and Union
>>         Authors         : Nir B. Sopher
>>                           Sanjay Mishra
>>         Filename        :
>> draft-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types-00.txt
>>         Pages           : 11
>>         Date            : 2021-11-11
>>
>> Abstract:
>>    Open Caching architecture is a use case of Content Delivery Networks
>>    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).  This document supplements to
>>    the CDNI Metadata Footprint Types defined in RFC 8006.  The Footprint
>>    Types defined in this document can be used for Footprint objects as
>>    part of the Footprint & Capabilities Advertisement interface (FCI)
>>    defined in RFC 8008.  The defined Footprint Types are derived from
>>    requirements raised by Open Caching but are also applicable to CDNI
>>    use cases in general.
>>
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types/
>>
>> There is also an htmlized version available at:
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types-00
>>
>>
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CDNi mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CDNi mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni
>