Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) Footprint Types: Country Subdivision Code and Footprint Union
draft-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types-12

I support Lars's DISCUSS position.

Please use the correct BCP 14 boilerplate.

In Section 2.2, "MUST not" should be "MUST NOT".

In Section 2.2.1, the final "footprintunion" should be quoted.

# Sec AD review of draft-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types-07

CC @paulwouters

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

This review uses the format specified in https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/ which allows automated tools to process items (eg to produce github issues)


## COMMENTS

### Section 2.2

In section 2.2, I would add a subscript line to the non-working figure to clarify to anyone skimming the document that this is not actually a supported configuration, eg:

```
{
  "capabilities": [
    {
      "capability-type": <CDNI capability object type>,
      "capability-value": <CDNI capability object>,
      "footprints": [
          {
              "footprint-type": "ipv4cidr",
              "footprint-value": ["192.0.2.0/24"]
          },
          {
              "footprint-type": "ipv6cidr",
              "footprint-value": ["2001:db8::/32"]
          }
      ]
    }
  ]
}

Figure 2: Example of a non-working footprint object
```

Perhaps also number the other figures in the document with descriptive texts?


### Security Considerations
```
Therefore, to meet confidentiality requirements, the use of transport-layer security mechanisms as specified in Section 7 of [RFC8008] is expected.
```

Instead of "is expected", why not "is RECOMMENDED" ? or "transport-layer security mechanisms as specified in Section 7 of [RFC8008] SHOULD be used."



### NITS:
```
    Section 7.2 of [RFC8006] creates the [...]
```

This is already created, so either use "created" or use "specifies".

Thank you to Daniel Migault for the SECDIR review.

** Section 2.1.1.1.  Editorial.

   An [ISO3166-2] code in lowercase.  Each code consists of two parts
   separated by a hyphen.  The first part is the [ISO3166-1] code of the
   country.  The second part is a string of up to three alphanumeric
   characters.

ISO3166-2 already defines the format.  To make that clear, consider s/The first part is/Per [ISO3166-2], the first part is/

** Section 2.2.  Typo. “syntextual restrication”.  I’m not sure what to replace both of these words with.  Is it “syntactic restriction”?

** Section 5.  Editorial.

   More specifically, the use of "subdivisioncode" footprint type,
   introduces a higher level of granularity into the published dCDN
   Footprint.  Therefore, to meet confidentiality requirements ...

It does not follow for my why a more specific sub-division code (sentence one) suggests confidentiality requirements (sentence two).

** Section 5.  In describing the CDNI Metadata Objective Model, Section 3 of RFC8006 hints at the uCDN expressing geo-blocking rules.  In addition to the intended use cases suggested in Section 1 of this document, is this higher resolution geographic metadata going to provide primitives that can express more selective filtering of content in the boundaries of a country?  While this dual use may not avoidable, should this be acknowledged?

I'd like to start off by thanking Menachem and Dhruv for their OpsDir reviews -- yay, two reviews for the price of one!

I'd also like to thank the authors for addressing the comments - I think that they significantly improved the document.

# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types-05

CC @larseggert

Thanks to David Schinazi for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/-wFk1qr6NmJErpMO7olE-DGXdEA).

## Comments

### Boilerplate

This document uses the RFC2119 keywords "SHOULD", "SHALL NOT", "MUST", "MUST
NOT", "REQUIRED", "MAY", "SHALL", "RECOMMENDED", "SHOULD NOT", and "OPTIONAL",
but does not contain the recommended RFC8174 boilerplate. (It contains some
text with a similar beginning.)

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool