Re: [Dime] Charter update

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

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 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:

> - 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.


Thanks!

Ben.