Subject: [Dime] PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-dime-qos-attributes-11.txt

From: Victor Fajardo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 22:07:33 -0500

PROTO WRITEUP for draft-ietf-dime-qos-attributes-11.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 Victor Fajardo. 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 defines a set of QoS related AVPs that a Diameter application
can use to signal QoS rules and parameters. It is intended to replace the
IPFilterRule AVP defined in RFC3588 and therefore has received extensive
review within the WG. It has also been review by members of TSVWG, 
interested
SDOs requiring Diameter based QoS signaling as well as folks with in-depth
QoS experience.  
 
   (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.  
 
   (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 WG behind the document. The problem space is
well understood and the solution is acceptable to the WG, as well
as other interested SDOs.
 
   (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 been split into normative and informative references.
There are no normative references that are work in progress.  
 
   (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 that is consistent with 
the body.
The document only request allocations of AVP codes in the IETF 
namespace. Following
RFC 3588, IETF consensus is required for the block allocations needed in 
this doc.
The consensus process given to this doc by the DIME WG serves as 
consensus for IANA
allocation requirements.
 
   (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 ABNF rules specified in RFC 3588. The ABNF content
has been validated.
 
   (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 specifies a set of AVPs that is used to carry
     QoS rules and parameters so that a Diameteter application
     that needs QoS support can signal them. Information contained
     in these AVPs are to be interpreted and consumed by QoS classifying
     entities. The Rule-Set AVP is intended to replace the IPFilterRule
     AVP defined in RFC 3588. It provides a clear and more extensible
     format than the original text based approach provided by
     IPFilterRule.

     The AVPs defined in this document are designed to be general
     enough to fit both PUSH and PULL QoS signalling models. The
     document provides examples on how both models are accomplished
     using existing Diameter applications.
 
   Working Group Summary
 
     There was consensus in the WG to publish the document.
 
   Document Quality
 
     The document has been sent for review to TSVWG and RADEXT. This
     document defines a core component of a Network Operators QoS
     architecture and thus have gone through a long review process
     both within DIME WG and outside of it. It has also traversed
     several re-start iteration before its current acceptable state.
 
   Personnel
 
     Victor Fajardo is the document shepherd for this document.