Subject: [Dime] PROTO Writeup for draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-01.txt

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:15:35 +0200

PROTO WRITEUP for draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-01.txt
================================================================

   (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?

The document shepherd is Hannes Tschofenig. I have personally reviewed
the
document and I believe it is ready 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?

This document is an AD sponsored document. It has been reviewed by 
Hannes Tschofenig (DIME WG co-chair) and Victor Fajardo (DIME WG
secretary). 
Additionally, Glen Zorn has provided a review. 

Since the work this document is based on has been done in the 3GPP the 
referenced specification, namely TS 29.272, has received a fair amount
of review. 

This document falls within a category of Diameter documents that have
recently 
been submitted to the IESG for allocation of Command Codes, such as 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sun-dime-itu-t-rw-02
and 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5224. 

   (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?

There are no concerns with this document.

   (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.

There are no concerns with this document. No IPR disclosures are known.

   (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 is not a working group item of the DIME working group. 
However, the group discussed the desire by other SDOs to develop
Diameter 
extensions without the need todo their work within the IETF, if
necessary. 

   (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarize 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.)

There is no opposition to this document.

   (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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?  If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

The document does not contain nits.

   (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 document has references split into normative and informative
subsections.
There normative reference section points to a 3GPP specification: 

   [TS29.272]
              3rd Generation Partnership Project, "3GPP TS 29.272
              V8.0.0; Technical Specification Group Core Network and
              Terminals;  Evolved Packet System;  MME and SGSN Related
              Interfaces Based on Diameter Protocol (Release 8)",
               http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/29272.htm,
              09 2008.

   (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations 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 [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

The document has an IANA considerations section and is the most
important part 
of the document as it asks IANA to register new Diameter Command 
Codes. The values are added to an existing registry established by the 
Diameter Base specification. 

   (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 document does not contain text written in a formal language. 

   (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 registers a set of IANA Diameter Command Codes to be 
     used in new vendor-specific Diameter applications defined for the 
     Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System 
     (EPS).  These new Diameter applications are defined for MME and
SGSN 
     related interfaces in the Release 8 architecture.

   Working Group Summary

     This document is not a DIME working group document but has received

     review from DIME WG members.

   Document Quality

     The document has been reviewed by Hannes Tschofenig, Victor Fajardo
and 
     Glen Zorn from the DIME working group. The main work this document
is 
     based on has been developed in the 3GPP and has received a fair
amount 
     of review. 

   Personnel

     Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd for this document.
_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime