Hi Andrew, Ben, and Nir, Andrew - Thank you for your reply and updated XML file. Sending an updated XML really speeds up the turnaround during AUTH48, especially with these more significant terminology updates.
We have a few followup questions/comments: A) Regarding: >> 6) <!-- [rfced] We note that the following reference entries are not >> cited anywhere in the document. These entries will be removed >> prior to publication, unless you would like to let us know where >> they may be added in the text. >> >> [OC-CII] Ryan, A., Ed., Rosenblum, B., Goldstein, G., Roskin, R., >> and G. Bichot, "Open Caching Capacity Insights - >> Functional Specification (Placeholder before >> publication)", <https://www.svta.org/document/open- >> caching-capacity-interface/>. >> >> [OC-RR] Finkelman, O., Ed., Hofmann, J., Klein, E., Mishra, S., >> Ma, K., Sahar, D., and B. Zurat, "Open Caching Request >> Routing - Functional Specification", Version 1.1, 4 >> October 2019, <https://www.svta.org/product/open-cache- >> request-routing-functional-specification/>. >> >> [OCWG] "Open Caching Home Page", <https://opencaching.svta.org/>. >> --> > > AR: Perhaps we should reference these documents in the introduction, to > highlight that > these are related. > BR - I'm fine with removing the references There appears to be conflicting guidance from Andrew and Ben for this. Please confer and let us know how we may update. B) Regarding: >> 10) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this document >> should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container for >> content that is semantically less important or tangential to the >> content that surrounds it" >> (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside). >> --> > > AR: this suggestion is unclear to me Apologies for the lack of clarity. We typically ask this when we see text led by "Note:" or "Note that", which would indent the text a bit. For this document, we see "Note:" in Section 2. Would you like us to format with the aside element? The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9808.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9808.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9808.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9808.xml The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9808-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9808-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only) Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the most recent version. For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9808 Thank you, RFC Editor/st > On Jul 18, 2025, at 9:53 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Greetings, > We reviewed the feedback you supplied and have considered/incorporated > them. Please find an XML document with changes and approval, along with a PDF > document which outlines the notes on the feedback. Please let me know if > this is acceptable and if there are any additional things I can do to > facilitate. Thank you > > Andrew Ryan > > On 7/3/2025 9:51 AM, Sarah Tarrant wrote: >> Hi Andrew, >> >> I'll be on the lookout for your email! >> >> Thank you, >> RFC Editor/st >> >>> On Jul 3, 2025, at 8:47 AM, Andrew Ryan <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Sarah, >>> Thank you for the followup. We are currently reviewing the questions and >>> should have feedback soon. Thank you again. >>> >>> Andrew Ryan >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 9:17 AM Sarah Tarrant >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Authors, >>> >>> This is a friendly reminder that we await answers to the questions below >>> and your review of the document before continuing with the publication >>> process. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> RFC Editor/st >>> >>>> On Jun 27, 2025, at 5:13 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> Authors, >>>> >>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) >>>> the following questions, which are also in the XML file. >>>> >>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in >>>> the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Do the extensions define or does this specification define >>>> "a set >>>> of additional Capability Objects..."? >>>> >>>> Current: >>>> The Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) Capacity >>>> Capability Advertisement Extensions define a set of additional >>>> Capability Objects that provide information about current downstream >>>> CDN (dCDN) utilization and specified usage limits to the delegating >>>> upstream CDN (uCDN) in order to inform traffic delegation decisions. >>>> >>>> Perhaps: >>>> This specification defines a set of additional >>>> Capability Objects that provide information about current downstream >>>> CDN (dCDN) utilization and specified usage limits to the delegating >>>> upstream CDN (uCDN) in order to inform traffic delegation decisions. >>>> --> >>>> >>>> >>>> 3) <!--[rfced] There are several lists for properties throughout the >>>> document. If the "Type" and "Mandatory-to-Specify" fields only >>>> contain one word and a period, may we remove the period? We note >>>> that this document follows the formatting style in RFC 8008; >>>> however, our current practice is to remove the punctuation if a >>>> description only contains one word (see similar examples in RFCs >>>> 9538 and 9677). Please let us know your preference. >>>> >>>> One example >>>> >>>> Current: >>>> Property: type >>>> >>>> Description: A valid telemetry source type (see Section 2.1.1.1). >>>> >>>> Type: String. >>>> >>>> Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes. >>>> >>>> Perhaps: >>>> Property: type >>>> >>>> Description: A valid telemetry source type (see Section 2.1.1.1). >>>> >>>> Type: String >>>> >>>> Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes >>>> --> >>>> >>>> >>>> 4) <!--[rfced] For consistency, should "Telemetry Capability" be updated >>>> as "the Telemetry Capability Object" in the following sentence? >>>> >>>> Original: >>>> The following shows an example of a Telemetry Capability >>>> including two metrics for a source, that is scoped to >>>> a footprint. >>>> >>>> Perhaps: >>>> The following shows an example of a Telemetry Capability Object, >>>> including two metrics for a source, that is scoped to >>>> a footprint. >>>> --> >>>> >>>> >>>> 5) <!--[rfced] We note that Table 1 includes a description of the >>>> "generic" source type, whereas Table 4 and the IANA registry do >>>> not. Should the description be added to Table 4 and the IANA >>>> registry? In Section 2.1.1.1, should Table 1 be replaced with a >>>> link to Table 4 to avoid duplication? >>>> >>>> Current (Section 2.1.1.1): >>>> At the time of this writing, the registry of valid Telemetry Source >>>> Object types is limited to a single type: Generic (see >>>> Section 3.2.1). >>>> >>>> Perhaps A: >>>> At the time of this writing, the registry of valid Telemetry Source >>>> Types is limited to a single type: generic (see Table 4 in Section >>>> 3.2.1). >>>> or >>>> >>>> Perhaps B: >>>> At the time of this writing, the "CDNI Telemetry Source Types" registry >>>> is limited to a single type: generic (see Table 4 in Section 3.2.1). >>>> >>>> ... >>>> Current (Section 3.2): >>>> +=============+===========+ >>>> | Source Type | Reference | >>>> +=============+===========+ >>>> | generic | RFC 9808 | >>>> +=============+===========+ >>>> Table 4 >>>> >>>> Perhaps: >>>> +=============+=======================================+===========+ >>>> | Source Type | Description | Reference | >>>> +=============+=======================================+===========+ >>>> | generic | An object that allows for | RFC 9808 | >>>> | | advertisement of generic data sources | | >>>> +=============+=======================================+===========+ >>>> Table 4 >>>> --> >>>> >>>> >>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] We note that the following reference entries are not >>>> cited anywhere in the document. These entries will be removed >>>> prior to publication, unless you would like to let us know where >>>> they may be added in the text. >>>> >>>> [OC-CII] Ryan, A., Ed., Rosenblum, B., Goldstein, G., Roskin, R., >>>> and G. Bichot, "Open Caching Capacity Insights - >>>> Functional Specification (Placeholder before >>>> publication)", <https://www.svta.org/document/open- >>>> caching-capacity-interface/>. >>>> >>>> [OC-RR] Finkelman, O., Ed., Hofmann, J., Klein, E., Mishra, S., >>>> Ma, K., Sahar, D., and B. Zurat, "Open Caching Request >>>> Routing - Functional Specification", Version 1.1, 4 >>>> October 2019, <https://www.svta.org/product/open-cache- >>>> request-routing-functional-specification/>. >>>> >>>> [OCWG] "Open Caching Home Page", <https://opencaching.svta.org/>. >>>> --> >>>> >>>> >>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] Terminology >>>> >>>> a) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used >>>> inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they >>>> may be made consistent. >>>> >>>> capability object type >>>> Capability Objects >>>> >>>> capacity limit-types >>>> Capacity Limits >>>> CDNI Capacity Limit Types >>>> >>>> CapacityLimit Object >>>> CapacityLimit object >>>> CapacityLimits Capability Object >>>> >>>> FCI capability >>>> FCI.Capability >>>> FCI.Capabilities >>>> >>>> limit-type >>>> limit type >>>> Limit Type >>>> >>>> Payload types >>>> Payload Types >>>> >>>> Telemetry Capability object >>>> Telemetry Capability Object >>>> >>>> Telemetry Source >>>> telemetry source >>>> Telemetry sources >>>> Telemetry Source Type >>>> telemetry source type >>>> >>>> Telemetry Source Metric Object >>>> Telemetry Source Metric objects >>>> >>>> Telemetry Source Object >>>> Telemetry Source object >>>> >>>> b) Should the payload types in the following titles be updated to >>>> match the payload types listed in Table 3? >>>> >>>> Original: >>>> 3.1.1. CDNI FCI Telemetry Payload Type >>>> 3.1.2. CDNI FCI Capacity Limits Payload Type >>>> >>>> Perhaps: >>>> 3.1.1. CDNI FCI.Telemetry Payload Type >>>> 3.1.2. CDNI FCI.CapacityLimits Payload Type >>>> --> >>>> >>>> >>>> 8) <!--[rfced] FYI - We updated the following expansions to the form on >>>> the right for consistency within this document and/or the RFC >>>> Series. Please let us know of any objections. >>>> >>>> Content Delivery Networks Interconnection (CDNI) -> >>>> Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) >>>> >>>> Footprints & Capabilities Advertisement Interface (FCI) -> >>>> Footprint & Capabilities Advertisement interface (FCI) >>>> >>>> Time To Live (TTL) -> Time to Live (TTL) >>>> --> >>>> >>>> >>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] Please consider whether the "type" attribute of any >>>> sourcecode >>>> element should be set. >>>> >>>> The current list of preferred values for "type" is available at >>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types>. >>>> If the current list does not contain an applicable type, feel free to >>>> suggest additions for consideration. Note that it is also acceptable >>>> to leave the "type" attribute not set. >>>> --> >>>> >>>> >>>> 10) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this document >>>> should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container for >>>> content that is semantically less important or tangential to the >>>> content that surrounds it" >>>> (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside). >>>> --> >>>> >>>> >>>> 11) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the >>>> online >>>> Style Guide >>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> >>>> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature >>>> typically >>>> result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. >>>> >>>> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should >>>> still be reviewed as a best practice. >>>> --> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> >>>> RFC Editor/st/kc >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 27, 2025, at 3:12 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> *****IMPORTANT***** >>>> >>>> Updated 2025/06/27 >>>> >>>> RFC Author(s): >>>> -------------- >>>> >>>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48 >>>> >>>> Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and >>>> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. >>>> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies >>>> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). >>>> >>>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties >>>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing >>>> your approval. >>>> >>>> Planning your review >>>> --------------------- >>>> >>>> Please review the following aspects of your document: >>>> >>>> * RFC Editor questions >>>> >>>> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor >>>> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as >>>> follows: >>>> >>>> <!-- [rfced] ... --> >>>> >>>> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. >>>> >>>> * Changes submitted by coauthors >>>> >>>> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your >>>> coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you >>>> agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. >>>> >>>> * Content >>>> >>>> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot >>>> change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: >>>> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) >>>> - contact information >>>> - references >>>> >>>> * Copyright notices and legends >>>> >>>> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in >>>> RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions >>>> (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). >>>> >>>> * Semantic markup >>>> >>>> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of >>>> content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> >>>> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at >>>> <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. >>>> >>>> * Formatted output >>>> >>>> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the >>>> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is >>>> reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting >>>> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. >>>> >>>> >>>> Submitting changes >>>> ------------------ >>>> >>>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all >>>> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties >>>> include: >>>> >>>> * your coauthors >>>> >>>> * [email protected] (the RPC team) >>>> >>>> * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., >>>> IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the >>>> responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). >>>> >>>> * [email protected], which is a new archival mailing list >>>> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion >>>> list: >>>> >>>> * More info: >>>> >>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc >>>> >>>> * The archive itself: >>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ >>>> >>>> * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out >>>> of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). >>>> If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you >>>> have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, >>>> [email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and >>>> its addition will be noted at the top of the message. >>>> >>>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways: >>>> >>>> An update to the provided XML file >>>> — OR — >>>> An explicit list of changes in this format >>>> >>>> Section # (or indicate Global) >>>> >>>> OLD: >>>> old text >>>> >>>> NEW: >>>> new text >>>> >>>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit >>>> list of changes, as either form is sufficient. >>>> >>>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem >>>> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, >>>> and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in >>>> the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. >>>> >>>> >>>> Approving for publication >>>> -------------------------- >>>> >>>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating >>>> that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, >>>> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. >>>> >>>> >>>> Files >>>> ----- >>>> >>>> The files are available here: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9808.xml >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9808.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9808.pdf >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9808.txt >>>> >>>> Diff file of the text: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9808-diff.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9808-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >>>> >>>> Diff of the XML: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9808-xmldiff1.html >>>> >>>> >>>> Tracking progress >>>> ----------------- >>>> >>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9808 >>>> >>>> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>>> >>>> Thank you for your cooperation, >>>> >>>> RFC Editor >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> RFC9808 (draft-ietf-cdni-capacity-insights-extensions-12) >>>> >>>> Title : CDNI Capacity Capability Advertisement Extensions >>>> Author(s) : A. Ryan, B. Rosenblum, N. Sopher >>>> WG Chair(s) : Kevin J. Ma, Sanjay Mishra >>>> Area Director(s) : Gorry Fairhurst, Mike Bishop >>>> >>>> >>>> > <AUTH48_ RFC-to-be 9808 _draft-ietf-cdni-capacity-insights-extensions-12_ for > your revie.pdf><rfc9808.xml> -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
