Subject: [Dime] PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-dime-diameter-api-06.txt

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:07:07 +0200

Hi Dan,

please find the PROTO writeup for
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-diameter-api-06.txt
at the following URL (and attached to this mail):
http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/PROTO_draft-ietf-dime-diameter-api-06.txt

The document is ready for publication.

Ciao
Hannes

-------------------------------

 PROTO WRITEUP for draft-ietf-dime-diameter-api-06.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?

Hannes Tschofenig ([email-masked]) is the Document Shepherd.  
I have reviewed the document personally, and find it to be 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?

The document has been in the IETF for a number of years. It has been 
reviewed through several phases while it was in the AAA and subsequently 
moved over to the DIME working group. 

There are no concerns regarding the reviews. 

   (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 further reviews are required.

   (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 current concerns.

   (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?

There is consensus in the working group to publish the document. 
Not everyone has, however, a strong opinion about publishing an 
API document. 

   (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.)

No.

   (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?

ID nits got verified. There are no formal review criteria with regard to 
this document. 

The draft contains C-code. It came from Sun's working implementatation. 
The document shepherd reviewed the C-code and additionally it was 
reviewed by Victor Fajardo, our WG secretary and main developer of the 
OpenDiameter stack. 

   (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].

Yes. References are split into normative and informative references. 

There is a normative reference to RFC 3493 "Basic Socket Interface 
Extensions for IPv6" (an informational RFC). However, the Diameter 
API document is an informational document.

   (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 [RFC2434].  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?

An IANA consideration section exists but there are no actions for IANA. 

   (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 contains C-code (as noted already above).

   (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:

Document Announcement Write-Up

   Technical Summary

   The Diameter authentication, authorization, and accounting (AAA)
   protocol provides support for peering AAA transactions across the
   Internet.  This document describes an API for the
   Diameter protocol.  The API is defined for the C language.  The
   intent of the API is to foster source code portability across
   multiple programming platforms.

   Working Group Summary

      There is consensus in the WG to publish this document.

   Document Quality

      There are two known deployments of Diameter servers using this
      API.  One of the implementation's maintainers has provided 
      many comments and contributions to the document.

   Personnel

      Hannes Tschofenig shepherded this document.

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime