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
