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 <and...@andrewnryan.com> 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 <starr...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > 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, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org 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, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org 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 > > > > * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (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). > > > > * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, 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, > > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org 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 > > > > > > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
