Subject: [AAA-WG]: Are we ready for another last call?

From: David Spence <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 16:14:05 -0500

The following WG drafts went to last call on July 27:

     draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-07.txt
     draft-ietf-aaa-transport-04.txt
     draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-mobileip-07.txt
     draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-nasreq-07.txt
     draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-cms-sec-02.txt

Last call expired on August 27, at which time, Bernard Aboba stated:

> Once these issues have been resolved and changes reflected in new
> documents, another WG last call will be required for those documents
> where the changes are substantial and technical in nature.

At that time, based on the issues that had already been raised, Bernard
indicated that a second WG last call would probably be required on:

     draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-07.txt
     draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-cms-sec-02.txt

Given the issues since raised with draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-mobileip-07.txt,
I assume that it too, at least, should get a second last call.

Looking back on the July drafts, it seems clear to me that they were not, as
a set, ready to go to proposed standard status.  They were broken in too
many places.  The progress that we have made since then has been substantial
-- largely due to those who were implementing the protocol and thus had to
grapple with it the hardest.

As a result of so much work by so many people, I am now growing fairly
confident in most of the drafts as I expect them to appear in their next
revision -- except for one.  None of the companies at the recent bakeoff had
implemented the cms-sec draft, so it was not tested there.  (See the bakeoff
report on this email list.)  Has anyone implemented cms-sec?  If so, has it
been implemented for use specifically with mobileip?  If the answer to
either of these questions is no, then I just do not feel confident that it
has had a broad enough review.  There have been only a relative handful of
group members who have commented on it.  I'm not suspecting problems with
CMS itself.  But have we integrated it with Diameter in a way that can be
used effectively in all the cases it will need to be used?  It is my sense,
that the cms-sec draft is not ready for proposed standard and will not be
ready until it has had the same level of scrutiny that the other drafts have
had.

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 15:57:46 -0800

Dave,

I agree with your assessment that the number of changes since the last Last Call
were significant enough to warrant another last call. However, I do not agree
with your view of the CMS specification. I believe that some implementation
has been done, but not interoperability. I make this statement based on some
comments that have been received, and addressed since the last call. Some of
these comments could only have been found through implementation (or an
incredible review!).

Since these documents are planned to go to Proposed Standard, this doesn't
actually make them a standard, so I don't see a problem moving the CMS 
spec ahead. I feel very comfortable with the latest alpha version.

PatC
> ready until it has had the same level of scrutiny that the other drafts have
Content-Description: Card for David Spence

---

From: David Spence <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:46:40 -0500

Pat Calhoun wrote:
> has been done, but not interoperability. 

... not interoperability.  Bingo.

> I make this statement based on some

In reviewing the contributions to the mailing list on CMS, I can find two
people to whom you may be referring in this regard:

              Don Zick <[email-masked]>
              Miguel Ángel Monjas Llorente <[email-masked]>

(I'm omitting you and Mr. Farrell from this list since I'm specifically
interested in review by non-authors.)  Now I am quite familiar with the work
of Mr. Zick.  So that only leaves the work of Mr. Llorente to raise my
comfort level.  Certainly if there were a few more like him, I would be much
happier.

> spec ahead. I feel very comfortable with the latest alpha version.

Mine is just one voice, but I still don't feel nearly as comfortable with
the cms-sec draft as I do with the others.

David S.