Shepherd writeup
rfc7423-28

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

   Best Current Practice

(2) 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 Diameter Base protocol provides an extensibility mechanism enabling
   a consistent way to define new Diameter applications, commands and attribute-
   value-pairs or modify existing ones.  This document is a companion document to 
   the Diameter Base protocol that further clarifies the rules to extend Diameter.
   This document is a guidelines document and therefore informative in nature.

Working Group Summary

   The working group reached consensus on the document and the contents of the 
   document was discussed in length.
   
Document Quality

   The document is a guideline document as such. Several topics discusses in the
   document originate from specification and implementation experience done
   outside IETF, specifically in 3GPP, when implementing and deploying new
   Diameter applications.

   The document has received early reviews from the AAA-Doctors, OPS-DIR,
   SecDir and Gen-Art. The request for reviews was posted into dir-coord and
   aaa-doctors mailing lists. Received comments have been reflected.
   
   Since the document does not define any MIBs, media types and such. Therefore,
   there is no need for MIB Doctor or Media Type and such expert reviews.

Personnel

  Jouni Korhonen (jouni.nospam@gmail.com) is the document shepherd.
  Benoit Claise (bclaise@cisco.com) is the responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

   The shepherd has reviewed earlier version than -21 of the document and
   diffs since then. The document is ready for publication and being forwarded
   to the IESG. Actually, the document has been in the working group since
   2007 and it is unlikely the technical contents would change/improve anymore.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?  

   No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

   The document has received an early review from AAA-Doctors, SecDir,
   Gen-ART and OPS-DIR. The reviews were requested through the
   dir-coord mailing list.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has 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.

   No issues/concerns identified. 

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

  Yes. Each author have confirmed that are not aware of an IPR to this document.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  No IPR declaration has been filed to this document.

(9) 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?   

  The working group has agreed on the contents of this document. There
  are no controversial topics that would be results of  "rough consensus".

(10) 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 publicly available.) 

  No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

   Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 3 comments (--).

  -- The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, and may
     have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  The
     disclaimer is necessary when there are original authors that you have
     been unable to contact, or if some do not wish to grant the BCP78 rights
     to the IETF Trust.  If you are able to get all authors (current and
     original) to grant those rights, you can and should remove the
     disclaimer; otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this
     comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at
     http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

   Current authors are ok with the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust. The shepherd
   has received a verification from the document editor that they are fine
   'Are you ok to grant "BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust"' However, we have not
   received note from all past authors of the document.

 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2409
     (Obsoleted by RFC 4306)

   Yes, intentional.

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3588
     (Obsoleted by RFC 6733)

   Yes, intentional.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

   Since the document is an Informational design guideline no formal review of the
   above is needed. They have already been done as a part of the document this
   document refers to.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

   No. The document has only Informative references, since it is itself an
   informative document without any RFC2119 language.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

   No normative references to documents in in-progress or unclear state documents.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in 
the Last Call procedure. 

   No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

   No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

   This document does not require actions by IANA.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

   This document does not require actions by IANA.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

   Does not apply to this document, since it does not contain any of the above.
Back