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

[[e-mail]]

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