Hi Sarah, We've made this update:
generic An object that allows for advertisement of generic data sources [RFC-ietf-cdni-capacity-insights-extensions-12] Registry: https://www.iana.org/assignments/cdni-parameters/ Best regards, David Dong IANA Services Sr. Specialist On Tue Jul 29 21:53:48 2025, starr...@staff.rfc-editor.org wrote: > Hi IANA, > > At <https://www.iana.org/assignments/cdni-parameters/cdni- > parameters.xhtml>, please make the following update under the "CDNI > Telemetry Source Types” registry: > > Old: > Source Type: generic > Reference: [RFC-ietf-cdni-capacity-insights-extensions-12] > > New: > Source Type: generic > Description: An object that allows for advertisement of generic data > sources > Reference: [RFC-ietf-cdni-capacity-insights-extensions-12] > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/st > > > On Jul 29, 2025, at 1:52 PM, Nir Sopher <nirsop...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Thank you Sarah, > > Please leave the email address as is (the apache one) > > Thanks, > > Nir > > > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2025, 06:20 Sarah Tarrant <starr...@staff.rfc- > > editor.org> wrote: > > Hi Nir, > > > > 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). > > > > Would you like your contact info updated in the draft? > > > > Current: > > Nir B. Sopher > > Qwilt > > 6, Ha'harash > > Hod HaSharon 4524079 > > Israel > > Email: n...@apache.org <mailto:n...@apache.org> > > > > Perhaps: > > Nir B. Sopher > > Qwilt > > 6, Ha'harash > > Hod HaSharon 4524079 > > Israel > > Email: nirsop...@gmail.com <mailto:nirsop...@gmail.com> > > > > Sincerely, > > RFC Editor/st > > > > > On Jul 25, 2025, at 2:17 AM, Nir Sopher <nirsop...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > I'm approving the doc > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2025, 14:53 Mishra, Sanjay > > > <sanjay.mis...@verizon.com> wrote: > > > +Nir Sopher > > > > > > 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 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
