Subject: [Dime] Request to publish draft-ietf-dime-extended-naptr-06

From: Sebastien Decugis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:07:29 +0900

Hello,

Here is the PROTO write-up for document "Diameter S-NAPTR Usage"
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-extended-naptr-06

  (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?
       
I, Sebastien Decugis ([email-masked]), am the document shepherd,
appointed by DiME chairs. I have reviewed the document and I believe it
is ready to be forwarded to IESG 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 received several in-depth reviews by group members
and sufficient discussion inside the DIME working-group.

The document should still be reviewed by DNS experts.
These reviews can be done during the IETF LC.

  (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?

I don't have such concern.

  (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.

I don't have such concerns or issues.

  (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?  
       
Since the WG consists of a few individuals, it is difficult to answer
this question. However, the document was taken as WG item with a strong
consensus on its usefulness, and received good contributions afterwards.

  (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.)
       
No, to the best of my knowledge.

  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
        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?
       
I have checked the ID nits and checklist, and confirmed that
there is no issue with this document.

  (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 are split.
There is a race condition with rfc3588bis draft, which is explicited
in Section 10 of this draft (Editor's Note).
There is no downward reference.

  (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 [RFC5226]. 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?
       
I have verified the IANA consideration section.
The new entries to existing registries are correctly identified.
There is no new registry requested.

  (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 ABNF syntax is verified and correct. There is no other formal language
in the document.

  (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 describes an improvement to Diameter dynamic peers discovery
mechanism using an extended format for the Straightforward-NAPTR (S-NAPTR)
Application Service Tag that allows for discovery of the supported Diameter
applications without doing Diameter capability exchange beforehand.

     Working Group Summary
    
The WG process went smoothly for this document.
The document is a result of collaborative WG work.

     Document Quality
    
There is currently no publicly announced implementations of this mechanism,
but there is known on-going implementation effort.
S-NAPTR and Diameter are implemented protocols.

Best regards,
Sebastien.

-- 
Sebastien Decugis
Research fellow
Network Architecture Group
NICT (nict.go.jp)