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. > > >
- [Dime] PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-dime-capablit… lionel.morand
- Re: [Dime] PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-dime-capa… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [Dime] PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-dime-capa… lionel.morand