The text looks reasonable, and I believe the tables are extracted from the common spreadsheet that has been vetted.

I do note that the document doesn't explicitly say what the storage in Chile will be used for.  Although it does say that there is enough room to keep all raw images, it does not definitively state that those will be stored.  The lack of decision here may complicate other design decisions (particularly around the Data Backbone).

Confirm the tables come from DMTN-135 (used a submodule). I will update the text to say as baseline we store raws but other use could be discussed.

Robert Blum Cristián Silva if there are other changes you would like to see in this please add here before I implement the RFC.

I think we should make a definitive statement in section 3 at the end for the recommended data set for the Chilean DAC that fits in our budget. I.e. connect table 2 and table 3. For example, we can store the coadds and raw images in Chile and then have room for some more dynamic data sets that come and go?

Robert Blum but already in 2024 you can have the Coadds OR the Raw but not both.  Hence my statement that the baseline is store the RAWs but you MAY want to do something else.

as agreed with bob https://dmtn-135.lsst.io/v/DM-16375/index.html  now includes enough storage in Chile for coadds and raws with a delta cost . That is now pulled  into 572 ticket branch DM-16375,  https://ldm-572.lsst.io/v/DM-16375/index.html

RFC branch is now updated with changes agreed by Bob - this also more clearly addresses KT's question.  So I believe this is now done.