Re: [Dime] Charter update

[jouni korhonen <[e-mail]>]

Ben,

On Aug 14, 2012, at 12:45 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:

> Hi, Comments inline:
> 
> On Aug 11, 2012, at 5:42 AM, jouni korhonen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> Folks,
>> 
>> Like discussed briefly during the Vancouver meeting there is a small
>> charter & milestone update required for the overload work. The topic
>> has already been brought up in IESG..
>> 
>> Here is the proposed charter update text:
>> 
>> - Diameter overload control. The aim of this work is to identify the
>> limitations of the Diameter protocol level overload control provided
>> by the current Diameter Base protocol. A set of requirements will be
>> provided to define a new Diameter level overload control mechanisms.
> 
> Is this language intended to cover work on the mechanism as well as work on requirements? As written, it 

Yes. Sloppy wording. Lets try tweaking the wording a bit:

- Diameter overload control. The aim of this work is to identify the
 limitations of the current Diameter base protocol overload control
 mechanisms and based on the identified limitations define a set of
 requirements for an overall Diameter overload control solution. The
 solution would need to fulfill the requirements.


> seems to cover identification of the limitations and the the set of requirements for a mechanism, but not the mechanism itself. From the Vancouver meeting, I can see that being a possible approach, but you did include milestones below that I assume to be for the mechanism.
> 
> That being said, I wonder why we need new charter text (as opposed to milestones) for this? The current charter contains the following text:

Just adding new milestones was the original intention. However, this got
changed in "upper layers" and thus the charter text modification as well.

>> - Maintaining and/or progressing, along the standards track, the
>> Diameter Base protocol and Diameter Applications. This includes
>> extensions to Diameter Base protocol that can be considered as enhanced
>> features or bug fixes.
> 
> 
> It seems to me that the proposed work falls squarely into the "enhanced features or bug fixes" language.
> 
> Don't get me wrong; I don't object to adding more specific charter language per se. My concern is that, if doing so delays having this work show up as a milestone, that may encourage other SDOs (e.g 3GPP) to pursue application-specific point solutions. Normally, I'm the first to say that doing something correctly should take priority over meeting an external deadline--but in this case I have trouble seeing why adding the milestone under the existing charter text wouldn't be equally correct.
> 
> 
>> 
>> ..
>> 
>> Sep 2012 - Submit I-D ' Diameter Overload Control Requirements' as a
>>          working group document. To be Informational RFC.
>> 
>> Nov 2012 - Submit I-D ' Diameter Overload Control' as a working group document.
>>          To be Standards Track RFC.
>> 
>> Dec 2012 - Submit I-D ' Diameter Overload Control Requirements' to the IESG for
>>          consideration as a Informational RFC.
>> 
>> Mar 2013 - Submit I-D ' Diameter Overload Control' to the IESG for consideration
>>          as a Proposed Standard RFC.
> 
> I think the milestones look good in general, but I really hope it doesn't take us until November to be able to progress the requirements document. I guess that depends on whether we get any significant controversy on it as more people read it.

There is no reason to wait till the milestone timeline is met if a document
is ready. That said, the document can be advanced as soon as it is ready for
it.

- Jouni

> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Ben.