Subject: [CDNi] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-17: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 07:33:58 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-17: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for updating the document status. Will re-review when it comes
back to the IESG. Leaving my comment below since I haven't re-reviewed
yet.

(2) Section 4: "For all of these mandatory-to-implement footprint types
..." seems like a misuse of the term "mandatory-to-implement." I thought
this section was specifying requirements for the FCI which is to be
specified, but this implies that all conforming implementations would
also have to implement all of the footprint types (country code, AS, and
IP prefix). Has that already been decided as well? If so, it could be
explained more clearly in the text.