Terminal Endpoint Identifier (TEI) Query Request Number Change
draft-ietf-sigtran-rfc4233update-02

[Ballot discuss]
This Internet draft doesn't provide enough information for a reader to
find the IANA registry.

Here's one suggested fix (others would suffice):

OLD:
  IANA should reserve the message type 8 of Management Messages for
  Terminal Endpoint Identifier (TEI) Query Request messages.
NEW:
  In the "Message Types" section of the "Signaling User Adaptation
  Layer Assignments" registry, IANA should reserve the message type
  8 of Management Messages for Terminal Endpoint Identifier (TEI)
  Query Request messages.

[Ballot comment]
The IANA considerations section should mention the name of the registry.
It's quite hard to find the registry on the IANA web page without a URL
and without the specific title "Signaling User Adaptation Layer
Assignments" (as used on IANA's page).

[Ballot comment]
It is curious that http://www.iana.org/assignments/sigtran-adapt
still refers to draft-ietf-sigtran-dua as a draft and work in
progress, even if RFC 4129 has already been published. A missing
IANA cleanup action, or something to do with the collision that
was later detected? In any case, it should be cleaned up.

I agree with Magnus's comment that asks for guidance regarding
interoperability. I hope the document could be amended with this
guidance.

[Ballot comment]
It is curious that http://www.iana.org/assignments/sigtran-adapt
still refers to draft-ietf-sigtran-dua as a draft and work in
progress, even if RFC 4129 has already been published. A missing
IANA cleanup action, or something to do with the collision that
was later detected? In any case, it should be cleaned up.

I agree with Magnus's comment that asks for guidance regarding
implementation. I hope the document could be amended with this
guidance.

[Ballot comment]
I am missing some text discussing the interoperability issues with the change. I guess there are implementations that use 5 despite the unclarity and which will take a while to change to use 8. What impact and possible work around does exist for this?

Proto Writeup for draft-ietf-sigtran-rfc4233update-01.txt

  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? 

          Lyndon Ong (Sigtran WG Chair)

  (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?

          Yes and No.

  (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?

          No, this is a simple correction to a previous RFC.

  (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.

          No concerns have been expressed.

  (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 strong WG consensus behind this document.  The
          WG as a whole understands and agrees with it.

  (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.)

          No one has expressed discontent with the document.

  (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?  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 has been checked for nits.  The nit checking
          Tool identified one reference to an outdated RFC, however
          This reference is believed to be helpful to understand
          The reason that the number assignment conflict occurred
          And the importance of resolving the conflict.

  (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].

          References have been split appropriately.

  (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?

          IANA considerations are very simple and clearly identified.

  (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?

          Not applicable.

  (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Write-Up. 

          Technical Summary
  This document updates RFC 4233 to remove a number assignment
  Conflict with RFC 4129 in the message type assigned to TEI
  Query Request messages.


          Working Group Summary
This document is a product of the Sigtran Working Group.  It has had
Appropriate review and reflects the consensus of that group.

          Document Quality
There are existing implementations of the IUA protocol and people
Doing this implementation were the primary participants behind the
Creation of this document, as it resolves a conflict discovered
During interoperability testing.

          Personnel
The Document Shepherd is Lyndon Ong, the responsible AD is Jon
Peterson

IANA Last Call comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignments in the "Signaling User Adaptation Layer Assignments"
registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sigtran-adapt
sub-registry "Management (MGMT) Message (0)"

Value Description Reference
----- --------------------------------------- ---------
tbd(8) TEI Query Request [RFC-sigtran-rfc4233update-01]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this
document.

NOTE: The document should probably make some reference to
"Signaling User Adaptation Layer Assignments".