Hi Ben, 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 21, 2025, at 2:04 PM, Ben Rosenblum <b...@rosenblum.dev> wrote: > > I approve the document. Thank you, Sarah! > > Ben > > On 7/21/2025 9:43 AM, Sarah Tarrant wrote: >> 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
