[CDNi] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types-05
Brian Haberman via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 15 December 2022 12:58 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: cdni@ietf.org
Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53955C1516F6; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 04:58:27 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Brian Haberman via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: int-dir@ietf.org
Cc: cdni@ietf.org, draft-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 9.3.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <167110910732.47469.15289670936171327058@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 04:58:27 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/sCKTF-7HokbDP0VnZYRYGsfWGq0>
Subject: [CDNi] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types-05
X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" <cdni.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cdni>, <mailto:cdni-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cdni/>
List-Post: <mailto:cdni@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cdni-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni>, <mailto:cdni-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 12:58:27 -0000
Reviewer: Brian Haberman Review result: Ready with Issues I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for this draft. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see <https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>. * Major issues : None * Minor issues : - Should these footprints be able to support the identification of individual hosts (e.g., IPv4address type versus IPv4cidr)? * Nits - If the answer to the minor issue is that endpoints (as defined in RFC 8006) can be identified in a footprint, I was a little confused by Section 2.2 discussing footprints that contain IP literals. It look me a bit to realize that this formulation does not support scoped IPv6 addresses (needed to trace back through RFC 8006 to RFC 3986 to find that information). It may be worthwhile to mention in the section description that scoped addresses are not supported in these types. - Section 2.2, 2nd paragraph needs a little rewording "listing IP addresses blocks" should either be "listing IP address blocks" or "listing IP subnets".
- [CDNi] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-cdni-… Brian Haberman via Datatracker
- Re: [CDNi] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-c… Nir Sopher