Re: [Dime] Start of the WGLC on draft-ietf-dime-drmp-02

Hi all,

I'm good with the document, although I agree with Janet's feedback that 
someone in ecrit should take a look at it, and with Lionel's feedback on 
the security section.

Section 6, number 4:

I assume the sender's decision to change the priority for the answer is 
app-specific. Maybe add some words here and in Section 8 to that effect.

Section 8:

Section 6 talks about nodes saving priority information found in the 
request's DRMP AVP with the transaction state, and then checking it if 
the AVP is absent in the Diameter answer. This info should be captured 
in this section also.

Nits:

Section 5, 1st paragraph: s/discussed/discusses

Section 5.1, 4th paragraph: s/job/jobs

Section 5.4, 5th paragraph: s/command-code/command code

Section 6, number 6: s/transaction/transaction state

Section 7: Add a period to end of paragraph

Section 11: s/Diamter/Diameter

Happy New Year!

Jean

On 12/23/15 4:26 AM, lionel.morand@orange.com wrote:
> As agreed during the Dime session at IETF94, a Working Group Last
> Call is asked on the following document:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-drmp-02
>
> Please respond to this email to support the document and/or send
> comments by 2016-01-20.
>
> As this WGLC is initiated during the Xmas/end-of-year break, the WGLC
> period is extended to 4 weeks. For reviewer of the document, don't
> forget to state if you are fine with the document even if there is no
> comment. It is important for evaluating the quality of the document
> and gauge the WG consensus.
>
> In addition, following the strategy for promoting compliance with the
> IPR disclosure rules (RFC6702), the chairs would like to check
> whether there are claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on the
> document that need to be disclosed. Therefore, the following
> questions are addressed to the WG and Especially Authors and
> Contributors of the draft:
>
> * Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to
> draft-ietf-dime-drmp-02? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in
> compliance with IETF IPR rules?  (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669, and 5378
> for more details.)
>
> * If you are a document author or listed contributor on this
> document, please reply to this email message regardless of whether or
> not you are personally aware of any relevant IPR.  We might not be
> able to advance this document to the next stage until we have
> received a reply from each author and listed contributor.
>
> * If you are on the DIME WG email list but are not an author or
> listed contributor for this document, you are reminded of your
> opportunity for a voluntary IPR disclosure under BCP 79.  Please do
> not reply  unless you want to make such a voluntary disclosure.
>
> Online tools for filing IPR disclosures can be found at
> <http://www.ietf.org/ipr/file-disclosure>.
>
> Regards,
>
> Lionel and Jouni
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
>  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.
>
> _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>