[CDNi] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types-07: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types-07: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you to Daniel Migault for the SECDIR review.

** Section 2.1.1.1.  Editorial.

   An [ISO3166-2] code in lowercase.  Each code consists of two parts
   separated by a hyphen.  The first part is the [ISO3166-1] code of the
   country.  The second part is a string of up to three alphanumeric
   characters.

ISO3166-2 already defines the format.  To make that clear, consider s/The first
part is/Per [ISO3166-2], the first part is/

** Section 2.2.  Typo. “syntextual restrication”.  I’m not sure what to replace
both of these words with.  Is it “syntactic restriction”?

** Section 5.  Editorial.

   More specifically, the use of "subdivisioncode" footprint type,
   introduces a higher level of granularity into the published dCDN
   Footprint.  Therefore, to meet confidentiality requirements ...

It does not follow for my why a more specific sub-division code (sentence one)
suggests confidentiality requirements (sentence two).

** Section 5.  In describing the CDNI Metadata Objective Model, Section 3 of
RFC8006 hints at the uCDN expressing geo-blocking rules.  In addition to the
intended use cases suggested in Section 1 of this document, is this higher
resolution geographic metadata going to provide primitives that can express
more selective filtering of content in the boundaries of a country?  While this
dual use may not avoidable, should this be acknowledged?