[Dime] Request to publish draft-ietf-dime-extended-naptr-06
Sebastien Decugis <sdecugis@nict.go.jp> Fri, 11 March 2011 02:06 UTC
Return-Path: <sdecugis@nict.go.jp>
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 A9AA53A69B6; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 18:06:29 -0800 (PST)
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 VavfHiwrRfVg; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 18:06:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sd-22293.dedibox.fr (sd-22293.dedibox.fr [88.191.125.50]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F41BA3A67FF; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 18:06:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sd-22293.dedibox.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62271940E3; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 03:06:41 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at sd-22293.dedibox.fr
Received: from sd-22293.dedibox.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sd-22293.dedibox.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OPLHxYRhdlCE; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 03:06:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [202.249.37.5] (morbier.koganei.wide.ad.jp [202.249.37.5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sd-22293.dedibox.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7551C94018; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 03:06:33 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4D7983E1.2050605@nict.go.jp>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:07:29 +0900
From: Sebastien Decugis <sdecugis@nict.go.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; fr; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>, dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [Dime] Request to publish draft-ietf-dime-extended-naptr-06
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: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 02:06:29 -0000
Hello, Here is the PROTO write-up for document "Diameter S-NAPTR Usage" http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-extended-naptr-06 (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? 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? I, Sebastien Decugis (sdecugis@nict.go.jp), am the document shepherd, appointed by DiME chairs. I have reviewed the document and I believe it is ready to be forwarded to IESG for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has received several in-depth reviews by group members and sufficient discussion inside the DIME working-group. The document should still be reviewed by DNS experts. These reviews can be done during the IETF LC. (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? I don't have such concern. (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? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. I don't have such concerns or issues. (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? Since the WG consists of a few individuals, it is difficult to answer this question. However, the document was taken as WG item with a strong consensus on its usefulness, and received good contributions afterwards. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No, to the best of my knowledge. (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? I have checked the ID nits and checklist, and confirmed that there is no issue with this document. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? 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? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The references are split. There is a race condition with rfc3588bis draft, which is explicited in Section 10 of this draft (Editor's Note). There is no downward reference. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? I have verified the IANA consideration section. The new entries to existing registries are correctly identified. There is no new registry requested. (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? The ABNF syntax is verified and correct. There is no other formal language in the document. (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 describes an improvement to Diameter dynamic peers discovery mechanism using an extended format for the Straightforward-NAPTR (S-NAPTR) Application Service Tag that allows for discovery of the supported Diameter applications without doing Diameter capability exchange beforehand. Working Group Summary The WG process went smoothly for this document. The document is a result of collaborative WG work. Document Quality There is currently no publicly announced implementations of this mechanism, but there is known on-going implementation effort. S-NAPTR and Diameter are implemented protocols. Best regards, Sebastien. -- Sebastien Decugis Research fellow Network Architecture Group NICT (nict.go.jp)
- [Dime] Request to publish draft-ietf-dime-extende… Sebastien Decugis