Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9390 <draft-ietf-dime-group-signaling-14> for your review

[Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>]

Greetings,

We do not believe we have heard from you regarding this document's readiness
for publication.  Please review our previous messages describing the AUTH48
process and containing any document-specific questions we may have had.

We will wait to hear from you before continuing with the publication process.

The AUTH48 status page for this document is located here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9390

Thank you,
RFC Editor/ap


> On Mar 24, 2023, at 10:08 AM, [e-mail] 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://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
> 
> 
> 2) <!--[rfced] For clarity, may we update this sentence below?
> 
> Original:
>   If the Diameter server accepts the client's request for a group
>   assignment, the server MUST assign the new session to each of the one
>   or multiple identified session groups when present in the Session-
>   Group-Info AVP.
> 
> Perhaps:
>   If the Diameter server accepts the client's request for a group
>   assignment, the server MUST assign the new session to each (one or more)
>   of the identified session groups when present in the Session-
>   Group-Info AVP.
> -->   
> 
> 
> 3) <!--[rfced] May we update instances of "service-specific auth" to be 
> "service-specific authorization"?
> 
> Original:
>   When sending the response to the client, e.g., a service-specific auth
>   response as per NASREQ AA-Answer [RFC7155], the server MUST include
>   all Session-Group-Info AVPs as received in the client's request.
> 
> Perhaps:
>   When sending the response to the client, e.g., a service-specific authorization
>   response as per NASREQ AA-Answer [RFC7155], the server MUST include
>   all Session-Group-Info AVPs as received in the client's request.
> -->   
> 
> 
> 4) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing the latter part of this sentence.   Please consider whether the suggested update correctly conveys the intended meaning. 
> 
> Original:
>   In such case, the response to the group command MUST
>   NOT identify any group but identify solely the single session for
>   which the command has been processed.
> 
> Suggested: 
>   In such case, the response to the group command MUST
>   NOT identify any group other than the single session for
>   which the command has been processed.
> -->
> 
> 
> 5) <!-- [rfced] Please review each artwork element in the xml file. 
> Specifically, should any artwork element be tagged as sourcecode or 
> another element?
> -->	
> 
> 
> 6) <!-- [rfced] Is the following general guidance for future registries, 
> or is it guidance for IANA in setting up these two registries and it 
> should be removed since the registries have already been created? 
> 
> Original:
>   The AVP names can be used as registry names
> -->
> 
> 
> 7) <!-- [rfced] Would you like the references to be alphabetized or 
> left in their current order?
> -->
> 
> 
> 8) <!--[rfced] We have lowercased "Service-Specific" in the sentence below, 
> as there are case no occurrences of the capitalized form used in RFC 6733.  
> Please let us know if you have any conerns. 
> 
> Original:
>   As in [RFC6733], the term
>   Service-Specific below refers to a message defined in a Diameter
>   application (e.g., Mobile IPv4, NASREQ).
> 
> Perhaps:
>   As in [RFC6733], the term
>   'service-specific' below refers to a message defined in a Diameter
>   application (e.g., Mobile IPv4, NASREQ).
> -->   
> 
> 
> 9) <!--[rfced] Should Tables 2 and 3 have titles? Please review, and 
> provide titles if desired. -->
> 
> 
> 10) <!--[rfced] How should the following acronyms that appear in Tables 2 
> and 3 be expanded?  Would it be helpful to include text that precedes 
> Tables 2 and 3 to define the expansions of these acronyms?
> 
>  GASR
>  GASA
>  GSTA
>  GSTR
> -->
> 
> 
> 11) <!--[rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to 
> be used inconsistently.  Please review these occurrences and let us now 
> if/how they may be made consistent.
> 
> result code vs. Result-Code
> re-authorization request vs. Re-Authorization Request (RAR)
> -->    
> 
> 
> 12) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the 
> online Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let us know if any changes are needed.
> 
> For example, please consider whether "natively" should be updated.
> -->
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> RFC Editor
> 
> 
> On Mar 24, 2023, at 10:05 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> *****IMPORTANT*****
> 
> Updated 2023/03/24
> 
> 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://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
> 
> 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://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).
> 
> *  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://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
> 
> *  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
> 
>   *  [e-mail] (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).
> 
>   *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
>      to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
>      list:
> 
>     *  More info:
>        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
> 
>     *  The archive itself:
>        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
> 
>     *  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, 
>        [e-mail] 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://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9390.xml
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9390.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9390.pdf
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9390.txt
> 
> Diff file of the text:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9390-diff.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9390-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> 
> Diff of the XML: 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9390-xmldiff1.html
> 
> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own 
> diff files of the XML.  
> 
> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9390.original.v2v3.xml 
> 
> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
> only: 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9390.form.xml
> 
> 
> Tracking progress
> -----------------
> 
> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9390
> 
> Please let us know if you have any questions.  
> 
> Thank you for your cooperation,
> 
> RFC Editor
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9390 (draft-ietf-dime-group-signaling-14)
> 
> Title            : Diameter Group Signaling
> Author(s)        : M. Jones, M. Liebsch, L. Morand
> WG Chair(s)      : Jouni Korhonen, Lionel Morand
> Area Director(s) : Warren Kumari, Robert Wilton
> 
>