As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
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?
Standards Track, which is indicated on the title page.
(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:
The Diameter base protocol commands operate on a single session so some
deployment cases could result in many thousands of command exchanges to
enforce the same operation on each session in the group. Specifying a mechanisms
for bulk operations on a number of session managed by a Diameter node using a
single or a few command exchanges would significantly reduce signalling. This
document specifies the Diameter protocol extensions to achieve this signalling
Working Group Summary
There is a consensus behind the document. It just took a long time
to complete the work.
There are no known implementation of this protocol yet.
There are plans expressed that the solution will be contributed
There is no need for MIB Doctor, Media Type or Expert
review in this document.
Jouni Korhonen (email@example.com) is the document shepherd.
Ben Campbell is the responsible AD.
(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
Shepherd has reviewed the document as part of the proto write-up
process. The document (-11) was re-reviewed again Dec 2019.
There are places for improvement, which are not fatal, though. For
example "AVP" is used before expanding the acronym.
In Section 4.1.2 it is not clear whether it is possible for a Diameter node
to withdraw its announcement for group operation support. The current
text says on lines 301-304 to log and remember node's support.
Section 6 is currently worded in a way that a group support has to use
existing commands. It should be possible to create new commands for
group support alone with a new Application ID. Although this is not
explicit, it would be the case anyway.
Section 7.4. "Group-Response-Action AVP" defines how the node should
follow up with exchanges in response to a command which impacts multiple
sessions. The shepherd chose not to ask for an IANA registry for this AVP.
If one is seen beneficial during the IESG review shepherd's recommendation
for assignment is "Standards Action" policy. However, the shepherd thinks
there are no foreseen new actions without changing the current protocol.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. The document has been lingering the DIME WG for a long time
and the people who are interested in this work have already said
(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
(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
No issues. However, the security considerations refer to possible
end to end security work in DIME / Diameter that may or may not take
place. Only RFC7966 for requirements exist.
(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. There are no IPR concerns.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
(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?
(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.)
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
No IDnits found that would not be corrected with a freshly generated
txt file from the XML or that are not editorial.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes. However, there are only Normative references.
(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?
(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.
(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.
(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).
The document requests for 5 new AVP code points.
The document creates two new registries:
1) Session-Group-Control-Vector AVP registry for capability bits
with two initial assignments.
The future registration assignment policy is "Specification Required".
2) Session-Group-Capability-Vector AVP with one initial assignment.
Changes to this registry is "Standards Action" policy.
The AVP names work as the registry names.
(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.
1) Session-Group-Control-Vector AVP registry. The future registration
assignment policy is "Specification Required".
Existing "AVP Codes" experts listed in IANA for Diameter should suffice.
(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.
None. AVPs were hand checked.