Subject: [Dime] PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-dime-diameter-qos-08.txt

From: Victor Fajardo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 08:15:28 -0400

PROTO WRITEUP for draft-ietf-dime-diameter-qos-08.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 new Diameter QoS application. It is designed to
provide a general method for signaling QoS authorization decisions and
associated QoS parameters. Since it encompasses a very visible and highly
used aspect of the core network, it has had thorough review from WG members
as well as participants from other SDOs who maybe impacted by the work.
The document shepherd has no concerns about the depth of 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?
 
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 normative references that are work in progress. These are the 
following:

   [I-D.ietf-dime-qos-attributes]
              Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., Arumaithurai, M., Jones, M.,
              and A. Lior, "Quality of Service Attributes for Diameter",
              draft-ietf-dime-qos-attributes-08 (work in progress),
              October 2008.

   [I-D.ietf-dime-qos-parameters]
              Korhonen, J. and H. Tschofenig, "Quality of Service
              Parameters for Usage with the AAA Framework",
              draft-ietf-dime-qos-parameters-07 (work in progress),
              November 2008.

It is expected that these referenced documents will complete 
standardization
well before the diameter-qos application document. There are no normative
references that are downward referenced.
 
   (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 new Application-Id, Command 
codes and 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

     The document specifies a framework, messages and AVPs for
     performing QoS authorization operations. It defines a QoS Diameter
     application that allows network elements (QoS aware routers) to
     interact with Diameter servers to authorize QoS request. It
     has been designed to operate in both 'Push' or 'Pull' mode
     where QoS authorization state is either sent to the network
     element pro-actively (Push) or the network element directly
     request QoS authorization from the Diameter server.

     A set of commands and AVPs has been defined to support both
     operating modes. A supplemental state machine that augments
     the Diameter base protocol (RFC3588) state machine has also been
     defined to cleanly support Push mode operations. The document
     also describes QoS authorization session establishment as well
     as re-authorization. It provides examples and call flows that
     describes how QoS authorization can be used other applications
     (e.g. NSLP, SIP).
 
   Working Group Summary
 
     There was consensus in the WG to publish the document.
 
   Document Quality
 
     The document has been sent for review to NSIS and relevant QoS folks.
     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.