+Nir Sopher <nirsop...@gmail.com> Hi all - I'm adding Nir on his GMAIL email as he may not have seen his n...@apache.org email that is on the draft.
@Nir Sopher <nirsop...@gmail.com> Please see the email thread and respond at your earliest convenience. Thank you Sanjay On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 10:48 PM Sarah Tarrant < starr...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > Hi Ben, > > Thank you for your reply. We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 > status page for this document (see > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_auth48_rfc9808&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=ky-2SzhC7R9rMG22MIJkhIoFzkJ7Hx4DIjCOmy2EnTg&e= > ). > > 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_auth48_rfc9808&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=ky-2SzhC7R9rMG22MIJkhIoFzkJ7Hx4DIjCOmy2EnTg&e= > ). > >> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9808.txt&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=Yy_n0pjdcbyGINdqqo78xahPXlhiGNc2si_jupQ_w_0&e= > >>>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9808.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=yCLRH9lrO8ySKY0GfiS7GPyMb39diJNmsvVU_qH2S8c&e= > >>>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9808.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=MrtwWOKVtBRwSaOMJqxS0vX3tJA4cFeNebooaIei2lI&e= > >>>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9808.xml&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=R7rJB5-T939fIuGVlQe9L5XrsjXCmvLZIBkL5B4zByI&e= > >>>> > >>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): > >>>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9808-2Ddiff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=v7AK0d5qcf1xoOGKOWoHvEhHPHGoRwbQb01KEaf4hmI&e= > (comprehensive diff) > >>>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9808-2Dauth48diff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=VKQj14cL9sepdnmeFVTiKvxLuF1gW7mgmgZd8FgG4wo&e= > (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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_auth48_rfc9808&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=ky-2SzhC7R9rMG22MIJkhIoFzkJ7Hx4DIjCOmy2EnTg&e= > >>>> > >>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.svta.org_document_open-2D&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=qcJvZoqBw-LRAayH0sGqWgMdvYE5Q-KkKjtpe-WzVkM&e= > >>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.svta.org_product_open-2Dcache-2D&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=3bJrpgTW4v3Hy1yHCQjtqSiB7fYyWqXSQ3sc2koTq-E&e= > >>>>>>>> request-routing-functional-specification/>. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> [OCWG] "Open Caching Home Page", < > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__opencaching.svta.org_&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=gMxEpeLepdyiTUVETw0ntKT_OKiZiIBDT2ZCPpbmYNI&e= > >. > >>>>>>>> --> > >>>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__authors.ietf.org_en_rfcxml-2Dvocabulary-23aside&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=Hi5ORHYUp6kBRh6540mzqlkAcPoHj54_V6XCrJlpklI&e= > ). > >>>>>>>> --> > >>>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9808.txt&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=Yy_n0pjdcbyGINdqqo78xahPXlhiGNc2si_jupQ_w_0&e= > >>>>>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9808.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=yCLRH9lrO8ySKY0GfiS7GPyMb39diJNmsvVU_qH2S8c&e= > >>>>>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9808.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=MrtwWOKVtBRwSaOMJqxS0vX3tJA4cFeNebooaIei2lI&e= > >>>>>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9808.xml&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=R7rJB5-T939fIuGVlQe9L5XrsjXCmvLZIBkL5B4zByI&e= > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): > >>>>>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9808-2Ddiff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=v7AK0d5qcf1xoOGKOWoHvEhHPHGoRwbQb01KEaf4hmI&e= > (comprehensive diff) > >>>>>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9808-2Dauth48diff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=VKQj14cL9sepdnmeFVTiKvxLuF1gW7mgmgZd8FgG4wo&e= > (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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_auth48_rfc9808&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=ky-2SzhC7R9rMG22MIJkhIoFzkJ7Hx4DIjCOmy2EnTg&e= > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_search&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=mRoLm4BB421vOCnkM7E4H8hLhE1JU-53kn5qvYP54rE&e= > . --> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.svta.org_document_open-2D&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=qcJvZoqBw-LRAayH0sGqWgMdvYE5Q-KkKjtpe-WzVkM&e= > >>>>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.svta.org_product_open-2Dcache-2D&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=3bJrpgTW4v3Hy1yHCQjtqSiB7fYyWqXSQ3sc2koTq-E&e= > >>>>>>>>>> request-routing-functional-specification/>. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> [OCWG] "Open Caching Home Page", < > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__opencaching.svta.org_&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=gMxEpeLepdyiTUVETw0ntKT_OKiZiIBDT2ZCPpbmYNI&e= > >. > >>>>>>>>>> --> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_rpc_wiki_doku.php-3Fid-3Dsourcecode-2Dtypes&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=lxoxH5_8FCu3HDpV69jV560MfhKrm85OLogUFbYoQlo&e= > >. > >>>>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__authors.ietf.org_en_rfcxml-2Dvocabulary-23aside&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=Hi5ORHYUp6kBRh6540mzqlkAcPoHj54_V6XCrJlpklI&e= > ). > >>>>>>>>>> --> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 11) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion > of the online > >>>>>>>>>> Style Guide < > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_styleguide_part2_-23inclusive-5Flanguage&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=zOByvY8vZ9PO6nu8YJqRUdxbYkDH8aQJ8ZB3DIbEt-g&e= > > > >>>>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_faq_&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=M7aDaJv6YYMR4ycHygvowIXwD24E8hJGeDeUpJkzUPI&e= > ). > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__trustee.ietf.org_license-2Dinfo&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=YwzV_8LRqpj1ZdEEJaljBRxBv_HliHVQA_0SgXStCBI&e= > ). > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> * 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__authors.ietf.org_rfcxml-2Dvocabulary&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=tPOWBxvUUULFFmPkCCsWWkKExPjciGhu-q3uwonGjCI&e= > >. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> * 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mailarchive.ietf.org_arch_msg_ietf-2Dannounce_yb6lpIGh-2D4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=-MvzUtpH-Q0OPeoVfWkHW8_SLXOx0TarEhxt65cOODU&e= > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> * The archive itself: > >>>>>>>>>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mailarchive.ietf.org_arch_browse_auth48archive_&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=vAMxNzYMVj0_-oKaux9amO_6S8WYEo_Cl4CbcQuN2UE&e= > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> * 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9808.xml&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=R7rJB5-T939fIuGVlQe9L5XrsjXCmvLZIBkL5B4zByI&e= > >>>>>>>>>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9808.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=MrtwWOKVtBRwSaOMJqxS0vX3tJA4cFeNebooaIei2lI&e= > >>>>>>>>>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9808.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=yCLRH9lrO8ySKY0GfiS7GPyMb39diJNmsvVU_qH2S8c&e= > >>>>>>>>>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9808.txt&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=Yy_n0pjdcbyGINdqqo78xahPXlhiGNc2si_jupQ_w_0&e= > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Diff file of the text: > >>>>>>>>>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9808-2Ddiff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=v7AK0d5qcf1xoOGKOWoHvEhHPHGoRwbQb01KEaf4hmI&e= > >>>>>>>>>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9808-2Drfcdiff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=aNHh2dRKlzYx_VUigxRWIll4xoG0bCYgd8Jp8bEiJVw&e= > (side by side) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Diff of the XML: > >>>>>>>>>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9808-2Dxmldiff1.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=DWlooIpNrqofTj990-zaDL6g9cbnCgkeNVq3Hq9zwjY&e= > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Tracking progress > >>>>>>>>>> ----------------- > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > >>>>>>>>>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_auth48_rfc9808&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=XniVbishGiO2Ao9hKqSc-hTVIWCi3T-x6GdHR4ZTgoM&m=PJlGb8RmuB6Rz0kPP68c_SZjIZAoq4YgPtbu_2OsqSiZKCVK4r_Q8fQne4dWn-FE&s=ky-2SzhC7R9rMG22MIJkhIoFzkJ7Hx4DIjCOmy2EnTg&e= > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 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
