Skip to main content

Diameter Credit Control Application MIB

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
03 (System) Notify list changed from, to (None)
03 (System) Document has expired
03 Benoît Claise
> Folks,
> As discussed in Dime WG meeting in Paris there seems to be no
> energy to get both MIB documents
> …
> Folks,
> As discussed in Dime WG meeting in Paris there seems to be no
> energy to get both MIB documents
> draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib
> draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cc-appl-mib
> completed. Unless someone steps ahead now by 8th April and
> really manages to progress these documents in few weeks time,
> we will abandon both and remove them from Dime charter's
> milestones..
> - Jouni & Lionel
03 Benoît Claise State changed to Dead from AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed
03 Benoît Claise Responsible AD changed to Benoit Claise from Dan Romascanu
03 Jouni Korhonen Submitted to IESG long ago.
03 Jouni Korhonen IETF state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
03 Dan Romascanu State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Dan Romascanu
03 Dan Romascanu State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested::Revised ID Needed by Dan Romascanu
03 Dan Romascanu State Changes to Publication Requested::Revised ID Needed from Publication Requested by Dan Romascanu
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cc-appl-mib-03.txt
03 Cindy Morgan
(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 …
(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 the MIB module for the Diameter Credit Control
It contains the minimum set of objects needed to manage a Diameter CC
application entity. These definitions are based on an implementation of
Diameter CC
and therefore gone through a good level of sanity checks. It has also been
reviewed by members of the WG. 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 document is an
essential/required part of the Diameter CC deployment and so the problem
space address by the doc is well understood.

(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 and 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 no normative refereces that are work in progress or downward

(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
The document only request allocations of new OID under MIB-2.

(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 MIB definitions. They have been validated and all
follow mib-2 syntax.

(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 the minimum required set of MIB objects
necessary to manage a Diameter CC application using SNMP. The document
specifies a MIB module that is compliant to the SMIv2. In
particular it descirbes the MIB objects used for managing
the Diameter CC application (RFC4006).

Working Group Summary
There was consensus in the WG to publish the document.

Document Quality
The document has been reviewed by members of the DIME WG
for its sanity in terms of the tunable objects and variables
necessary for managing a Diameter node. It has also been reviewed
by external folks who have vested interest in having a MIB module
standardized. Additionally, the document has been passed through
automated MIB checking tools to verify sanity of syntax and

Victor Fajardo is the document shepherd for this document.
03 Cindy Morgan Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested
03 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'Victor Fajardo ( is the document shepherd.' added by Cindy Morgan
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cc-appl-mib-02.txt
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cc-appl-mib-01.txt
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cc-appl-mib-00.txt