Subject: [Dime] PROTO writeup for draft-ietf-dime-nai-routing-02

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 14:34:16 +0300

PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-dime-nai-routing
=============================================

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-nai-routing-02

   (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 is the document shepherd. 
The document is ready for publication. 

Dan Romascanu is the responsible AD. 

   (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
      the interested community and others?  Does the Document Shepherd
      have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
      have been performed?

The document was reviewed within the DIME working group. 

   (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 regarding the amount of review. 
The document will also be reviewed by the AAA doctors group in a later 
publication phase. 

   (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 interested community has discussed those issues and has
      indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
      those concerns here.

There are no concerns with the document.

   (1.e)  How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
      this document?  Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
      individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
      community as a whole understand and agree with it?

There is consensus within the DIME WG to publish the document. 
The members of the group had some discussions regarding procedural
aspects, namely whether to progress this document independently or 
as part of RFC3588bis. The decision was made to progress it
independently. 

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

Nobody stated extreme discontent.  

   (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?

The nits have been checked. 

   (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 references in the document have been split into normative and
informative. 

   (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 suggested a reasonable name for the new registry?  See
      [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].  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?

This document does not require actions by 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?

There is no formal language in the document.

   (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
      Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
      Announcement Writeup?  Recent examples can be found in the
      "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
      announcement contains the following sections:

      Technical Summary

   This specification defines the behavior required of Diameter agents
   to route requests when the User-Name Attribute Value Pair contains a
   Network Access Identifier formatted with multiple realms.  These
   multi-realm or "Decorated" Network Access Identifiers are used in
   order to force the routing of request messages through a predefined
   list of mediating realms.

      Working Group Summary

The document fixes a small technical aspect and hence it sailed 
smoothly through the DIME group.

      Document Quality

This document is the product of the DIME working group. 
The current implementation status of this specification is, however, 
unknown. We expect implementations to arrive when larger Diameter 
deployments utilize the RFC 4282 based NAI format. 

      Personnel

Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd for this document. 
Dan Romascanu is the responsible AD.