Re: [Dime] PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update-05.txt

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

Lionel,

I guess that the IESG-Secretary should take this as an official request
to consider
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update-05.txt for
Proposed Standard. Correct? 

Regards,

Dan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 10:53 AM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update-05.txt
> 
> 
>  PROTO WRITEUP for draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update-05.txt
> ============================================================= 
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update-05.txt
> 
>  
>   (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? 
> 
> 	  ==> Lionel Morand
> 
>         Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this 
> version of the 
>         document and, in particular, does he or she believe this 
>         version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? 
> 
> 	  ==> Yes.
> 
>   (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members 
>         and from key non-WG members? 
> 
> 	  ==> Yes.
> 
> 	  Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth 
>         or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 
> 
> 	  ==> No. 
> 
>   (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document 
>         needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, 
>         e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with 
>         AAA, internationalization or XML? 
> 
> 	  ==> No.
> 
>   (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or 
>         issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
>         and/or the IESG should be aware of? 
> 
> 	  ==> No.
> 
> 	  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document 
>         been filed? 
> 
> 	  ==> No. 
> 
>   (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it 
>         represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with 
>         others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and 
>         agree with it? 
> 
> 	  ==> This document was pushed mainly by the authors 
> but captures a solution
> 	  for a problem understood and agreed by the Dime WG. 
> 
>   (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise 
> indicated extreme 
>         discontent? 
> 
> 	  ==> No.
> 
>   (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the 
>         document satisfies all ID nits? (See the 
> Internet-Drafts Checklist 
>         and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate 
> checks are
> 
>         not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document 
>         met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB 
>         Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?
> 
> 	  ==> The document was verified. No issue found. 
> 
>   (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and 
>         informative?
> 
> 	  ==> Yes.
> 
> 	  Are there normative references to documents that 
>         are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear 
>         state? If such normative references exist, what is the 
>         strategy for their completion?
>  	
> 	  ==> The draft has a normative reference to the 
> draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis that is not yet published as RFC.
> 	  However, this draft is under review process and 
> should be soon published.
> 
>   (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA 
>         consideration section exists and is consistent with the body 
>         of the document?
> 		
> 	  ==> Yes.
> 
> 	  If the document specifies protocol 
>         extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA 
>         registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified?
> 
> 	  ==> Yes.
> 	  One new Diameter application id and two new Diameter 
> command code values are requested in the corresponding 
> existing IANA registries.
> 
>   (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the 
>         document that are written in a formal language, such as XML 
>         code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in 
>         an automated checker? 
> 	 
> 	  ==> Yes.
> 
>   (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document 
>         Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document 
>         Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
>         "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval 
>         announcement contains the following sections: 
> 
>      Technical Summary 
> 
> 	   This document defines a new Diameter application and 
> associated
> 	   command codes.  The Diameter Capabilities Update 
> application is intended to
> 	   allow the dynamic update of certain Diameter peer 
> capabilities while
> 	   the peer-to-peer connection is in the open state. 
> This application relies 
>          on the exchange of the Capabilities-Update-Request/Answer
> (CUR/CUA) messages
>          between peers supporting the Diameter Capabilities 
> Update application
> 
>      Working Group Summary 
>         
> 	   There was consensus in the WG to publish the document.  
> 
>      Document Quality 
>         
> 	  This document has been reviewed and commented from 
> key people in the Dime WG.
>