Hi Andrew, Thank you for your reply. We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9808).
We will await approvals from each of the parties listed at the AUTH48 status page prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. Thank you, RFC Editor/st > On Jul 18, 2025, at 12:38 PM, and...@andrewnryan.com wrote: > > Sarah, > Once again, thank you so much for working with us on this. I have reviewed > the document and approve. > > Andrew Ryan > > On 7/18/2025 1:08 PM, Sarah Tarrant wrote: >> Hi Andrew, >> >> Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document accordingly and have >> no further questions. >> >> Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not >> make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any >> further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. >> We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the >> publication process. >> >> 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 11:55 AM, and...@andrewnryan.com wrote: >>> >>> Sarah, >>> I am glad that the format was easy. Please see answers inline. Thank you >>> very much for your collaboration on this, it is greatly appreciated. >>> >>> Andrew Ryan >>> >>> On 7/18/2025 12:26 PM, Sarah Tarrant wrote: >>>> 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. >>> Apologies for not clarifying/updating the PDF to reflect the outcome: I am >>> AR in this sense, and I agree with BR (Ben) about removing the non-cited >>> references. >>> >>>> >>>> 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? >>> Thank you for the clarification. This seems like a good formatting >>> suggestion, can we please utilize the aside element for this Note? >>> >>>> >>>> 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, and...@andrewnryan.com 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 <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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> <AUTH48_ RFC-to-be 9808 _draft-ietf-cdni-capacity-insights-extensions-12_ >>>>> for your revie.pdf><rfc9808.xml> >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
