[Dime] PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update-05.txt
<lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com> Thu, 22 July 2010 07:56 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 064633A68A2; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:56:04 -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 Fqc9SLD82OUr; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:56:03 -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 C40DF3A63C9; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:56:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 7595FFC401A; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:55:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.46]) by r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 350BDFC4012; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:53:41 +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 09:53:23 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:53:21 +0200
Message-ID: <D109C8C97C15294495117745780657AE0CB5E66E@ftrdmel1>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update-05.txt
Thread-Index: AcspcvS9xACFcBSgRPOS9U5jR+1HNw==
From: lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com
To: dromasca@avaya.com, iesg-secretary@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jul 2010 07:53:23.0714 (UTC) FILETIME=[F5CE4E20:01CB2972]
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: [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 07:56:04 -0000
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