[CDNi] Éric Vyncke's Yes on draft-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types-05: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types-05: Yes

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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for
draft-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types-05 CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Kevin J. Ma for the shepherd's detailed (albeit unusual
format) write-up including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the
intended status.

Other thanks to Brian Haberman, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my
request), please consider this int-dir review as I have not seen any reply to
Brian's review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types-05-intdir-telechat-haberman-2022-12-15/

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS

### Wrong BCP 14 template

Very easy to fix, please use the current BCP 14 template from RFC 8174... I am
trusting the AD and RFC Editor to enforce this BCP14, hence not raising a
blocking DISCUSS.

### Section 1

The SVTA acronym is expanded twice in a row :-o

### Section 1.1

Suggest to repeat the acronyms expanded in the abstract (e.g., FCI and others).

### Section 2.2.1

`where the Footprint objects MUST be of any Footprint Type other than
footprintunion.` isn't this too restrictive ? While I am not an expert, I would
have expected to allow a footprintunion inside a footprintunion (to allow a mix
of AND and OR).

## NITS

### Section 2.1.2

s/US/USA/ ?

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments