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

[[e-mail]]

Hi,

Thank you for your patience.
Please find below our feedback.

Regards,

Lionel


Orange Restricted

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Envoyé : vendredi 24 mars 2023 18:08
> À : [e-mail]; [e-mail]; MORAND Lionel INNOV/NET
> <[e-mail]>
> Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9390 <draft-ietf-dime-group-signaling-14> for your
> review
> 
> 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. -->

[[LM]] Nothing to add.

> 
> 
> 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.
> -->

[[LM]] We agree!

> 
> 
> 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.
> -->

[[LM]]  in the present case, it can only be "authorization". And, as it is "e.g." it is fine to say "service-specification authorization".

> 
> 
> 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.
> -->

[[LM]] The node can request to process a request for all sessions assigned to one or multiple groups identified in the request. But the receiving node can decide to treat the request only for the Session-Id included in the request.

Proposed clarification:

OLD:

     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.

NEW:

    In such case, the response to the group command MUST
    NOT include any group identifier but only the Session-Id identifying the 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?
> -->

[[LM]] OK. None of the artwork element should be tagged as sourcecode.

> 
> 
> 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
> -->

[[LM]] only guidance for IANA. Can be removed when processed.
> 
> 
> 7) <!-- [rfced] Would you like the references to be alphabetized or
> left in their current order?
> -->

[[LM]] no specific preference. It is actually based on the first occurrence but any order would be fine for us.

> 
> 
> 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).
> -->

[[LM]] OK!

> 
> 
> 9) <!--[rfced] Should Tables 2 and 3 have titles? Please review, and
> provide titles if desired. -->
> 
[[LM]] OK! For sake of clarity:

OLD:

Table 2

NEW:

Table 2: Group Authorization Session State Machine for Stateful Client

OLD:

Table 3

New:

Table 3: Group Authorization Session State Machine for Stateful Server

> 
> 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
> -->
> 

[[LM]] it would not arm to list all of them:

GASR: Group-Abort-Session-Request
GASA: Group-Abort-Session-Answer
GSTA: Group-Session-Termination-Answer
GSTR: Group-Session-Termination-Request 

> 
> 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

[[LM]] No inconsistency here. "result code" is a value. "Result-Code" is the AVP.

> re-authorization request vs. Re-Authorization Request (RAR)
> -->

[[LM]] OK!

> 
> 
> 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.
> -->

[[LM]] only one occurrence.

OLD:

   Newly defined Diameter applications may natively support Diameter
   session grouping and group operations.  Such applications provide
   intrinsic discovery for the support of session grouping capability
   using the assigned Application Id advertised during the capability
   exchange phase described in Section 5.3 of [RFC6733].

NEW:

   Newly defined Diameter applications may intrinsically support Diameter
   session grouping and group operations.  In such a case, there is no need 
   of a specific discovery mechanism for the support of session grouping 
   capability besides the discovery of the Application Id assigned to the 
   application advertised during the capability exchange phase described in
   Section 5.3 of [RFC6733].

>
> 
> 
> 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
> 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.