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

<lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com> Thu, 22 July 2010 09:44 UTC

Return-Path: <lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com>
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 194663A6A41; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:44:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
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 7Bz5CgAtJdcV; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:44:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [217.108.152.42]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 804AA3A6A64; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 0B02BFC403A; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:37:00 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.46]) by r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28D5FFC4043; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:25:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.40]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:25:02 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:25:00 +0200
Message-ID: <D109C8C97C15294495117745780657AE0CB5E6E0@ftrdmel1>
In-Reply-To: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04023D1059@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update-05.txt
Thread-Index: AcspcvS9xACFcBSgRPOS9U5jR+1HNwAC1MBAAABHT2A=
References: <D109C8C97C15294495117745780657AE0CB5E66E@ftrdmel1> <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04023D1059@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
From: lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com
To: dromasca@avaya.com, iesg-secretary@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jul 2010 09:25:02.0757 (UTC) FILETIME=[C37DAD50:01CB297F]
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update-05.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/mail-archive/web/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:44:08 -0000

Correct. The draft is ready for publication.

BR,

Lionel 

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] 
> Envoyé : jeudi 22 juillet 2010 11:16
> À : MORAND Lionel RD-CORE-ISS; iesg-secretary@ietf.org
> Cc : dime@ietf.org
> Objet : RE: PROTO Writeup for 
> draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update-05.txt
> 
> 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.t
> xt for Proposed Standard. Correct? 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com 
> > [mailto:lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 10:53 AM
> > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); iesg-secretary@ietf.org
> > Cc: dime@ietf.org
> > 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.
> > 
>