Re: [Dime] WG Review: Recharter of Diameter Maintenance and Extensions(dime)

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca at avaya.com>]

Tom,

This is my understanding. I would add the fact that there should be
enough active participants (editors, committed reviewers) for this work
to be undergone and completed.  

Dan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Taylor [mailto:tom.taylor at rogers.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 5:36 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: Glen Zorn; dime at ietf.org; iesg at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Dime] WG Review: Recharter of Diameter 
> Maintenance and Extensions(dime)
> 
> I asked the question on the DIME list. I'll ask it again. I 
> believe I read below that if the realm-based redirection 
> draft becomes sufficiently mature it can be adopted as a WG 
> item within the scope of the currently proposed charter. Can 
> you confirm this?
> 
> Tom
> 
> Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> >  
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Glen Zorn [mailto:glenzorn at comcast.net]
> >> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 12:27 PM
> >> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> >> Cc: 'Hannes Tschofenig'; dime at ietf.org; vfajardo at tari.toshiba.com; 
> >> iesg at ietf.org
> >> Subject: RE: WG Review: Recharter of Diameter Maintenance and
> >> Extensions(dime)
> >>
> >> Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca at avaya.com] writes:
> >>
> >>> Glen,
> >>>
> >>> Rechartering and the "hum" for adoption of a document as WG
> >> item need
> >>> not be necessarily serialized. Rechartering is about
> >> approving to work
> >>> on a specific problem. The "hum" acknowledges (or not) that
> >> a certain
> >>> document is good enough to be the 00 version of the WG I-D
> >> that will
> >>> provide a solution to the problem. Of course, if
> >> rechartering is not
> >>> approved the "hum" will not have any effect, but otherwise
> >> some time
> >>> may be won by runing the "hum" and the rechartering review in 
> >>> parallel.
> >> I see.  Unfortunately, I can't see any mention of the 
> problem in the 
> >> revised charter, either, unless it is your opinion that 
> realm-based 
> >> redirection would be an extension to the Diameter Base 
> Protocol (not 
> >> unreasonable).
> > 
> > Something on this lines. The  WG decided to use extensions as a 
> > generic denomination of many applications of various kinds 
> so that the 
> > text needs not be changed each time. There is always an 
> opportunity to 
> > express concerns when a deliverable is out of what would be a 
> > reasonable extension.
> > 
> [snip]
>