[CDNi] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-cdni-edge-control-metadata-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

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

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-cdni-edge-control-metadata-11: Discuss

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-edge-control-metadata/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


# Éric Vyncke INT AD comments for draft-ietf-cdni-edge-control-metadata-11
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some
non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be appreciated even if only for
my own education).

Special thanks to Guillaume Bichot for the shepherd's write-up including the WG
consensus and the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

Note: this ballot comments follow the Markdown syntax of
https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/tree/main, i.e., they can be processed by
a tool to create github issues.

## DISCUSS (blocking)

As noted in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-handling-ballot-positions-20220121/,
a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the points below; I
really think that the document would be improved with a change here, but can be
convinced otherwise.

### Wrong BCP14 template

Trivial to fix but important, please use the correct BCP14 template (it misses
RFC 8174).

### Confusing section 6

In `The FCI and MI objects defined in this document`, FCI appears for the first
time in the document. Please add a reference or remove it.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Title ?

Should CDNI be expanded in the title ?

### Abstract

With the capitalization of "Open Caches", it hints at a protocol/specification,
please add a reference or do not mention it in the abstract.

### Section 3.1

Please find `uCDN` and `dCDN` at first use (+ explain the terms).

### Section 3.4

s/The following is an informative/The *figure 1* is an informative/ ?