[Dime] PROTO Writeup for draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-01.txt
"Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com> Wed, 31 December 2008 09:15 UTC
Return-Path: <dime-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF2F03A695B; Wed, 31 Dec 2008 01:15:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAD083A694E; Wed, 31 Dec 2008 01:15:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.52
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.079, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1XdMWz02Mdp8; Wed, 31 Dec 2008 01:15:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [217.115.75.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63BCD3A6768; Wed, 31 Dec 2008 01:15:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBV9FKgL015857 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:15:20 +0100
Received: from demuexc025.nsn-intra.net (demuexc025.nsn-intra.net [10.159.32.12]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBV9FJSe007620; Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:15:19 +0100
Received: from FIESEXC007.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.15]) by demuexc025.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:15:19 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:15:35 +0200
Message-ID: <C41BFCED3C088E40A8510B57B165C162F0ABBA@FIESEXC007.nsn-intra.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: PROTO Writeup for draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-01.txt
thread-index: AclqizluIHHOdx2rTiG6Q/X4SeeNdw==
From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, iesg-secretary@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Dec 2008 09:15:19.0509 (UTC) FILETIME=[4D371850:01C96B28]
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: [Dime] PROTO Writeup for draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-01.txt
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org
PROTO WRITEUP for draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-01.txt ================================================================ (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? 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? The document shepherd is Hannes Tschofenig. I have personally reviewed the document and I believe it is ready for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? This document is an AD sponsored document. It has been reviewed by Hannes Tschofenig (DIME WG co-chair) and Victor Fajardo (DIME WG secretary). Additionally, Glen Zorn has provided a review. Since the work this document is based on has been done in the 3GPP the referenced specification, namely TS 29.272, has received a fair amount of review. This document falls within a category of Diameter documents that have recently been submitted to the IESG for allocation of Command Codes, such as http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sun-dime-itu-t-rw-02 and http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5224. (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? There are no concerns with this document. (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? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. There are no concerns with this document. No IPR disclosures are known. (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 is not a working group item of the DIME working group. However, the group discussed the desire by other SDOs to develop Diameter extensions without the need todo their work within the IETF, if necessary. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) There is no opposition to this document. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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? If the document does not already indicate its intended status at the top of the first page, please indicate the intended status here. The document does not contain nits. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? 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? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The document has references split into normative and informative subsections. There normative reference section points to a 3GPP specification: [TS29.272] 3rd Generation Partnership Project, "3GPP TS 29.272 V8.0.0; Technical Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; Evolved Packet System; MME and SGSN Related Interfaces Based on Diameter Protocol (Release 8)", http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/29272.htm, 09 2008. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation? The document has an IANA considerations section and is the most important part of the document as it asks IANA to register new Diameter Command Codes. The values are added to an existing registry established by the Diameter Base specification. (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? The document does not contain text written in a formal language. (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 registers a set of IANA Diameter Command Codes to be used in new vendor-specific Diameter applications defined for the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS). These new Diameter applications are defined for MME and SGSN related interfaces in the Release 8 architecture. Working Group Summary This document is not a DIME working group document but has received review from DIME WG members. Document Quality The document has been reviewed by Hannes Tschofenig, Victor Fajardo and Glen Zorn from the DIME working group. The main work this document is based on has been developed in the 3GPP and has received a fair amount of review. Personnel Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd for this document. _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
- [Dime] PROTO Writeup for draft-jones-dime-3gpp-ep… Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)