Diameter Command Code Registration for the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)
RFC 5516
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2015-10-14
|
02 | (System) | Notify list changed from mark.jones@bridgewatersystems.com, lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com, draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2009-04-20
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan |
|
2009-04-20
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'RFC 5516' added by Cindy Morgan |
|
2009-04-16
|
02 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2009-03-18
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
|
2009-03-18
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
|
2009-03-18
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
|
2009-03-17
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2009-03-17
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
|
2009-03-17
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2009-03-16
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
|
2009-03-16
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2009-03-16
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2009-03-16
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2009-03-16
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2009-03-13
|
02 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-03-12 |
|
2009-03-12
|
02 | Dan Romascanu | Area acronymn has been changed to ops from gen |
|
2009-03-12
|
02 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
|
2009-03-12
|
02 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Amy Vezza |
|
2009-03-12
|
02 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
|
2009-03-12
|
02 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
|
2009-03-12
|
02 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot comment] |
|
2009-03-12
|
02 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley |
|
2009-03-12
|
02 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
|
2009-03-12
|
02 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
|
2009-03-12
|
02 | Chris Newman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman |
|
2009-03-11
|
02 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
|
2009-03-11
|
02 | David Ward | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward |
|
2009-03-11
|
02 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
|
2009-03-11
|
02 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
|
2009-03-11
|
02 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
|
2009-03-10
|
02 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
|
2009-03-08
|
02 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
|
2009-03-06
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-02.txt |
|
2009-03-05
|
02 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
|
2009-03-04
|
02 | Dan Romascanu | [Note]: 'IETF LC ends on 3/5. A new revised I-D will be available immediatly after the Last Call.' added by Dan Romascanu |
|
2009-03-04
|
02 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot comment] Please expand MME and SGSN in the document Abstract. |
|
2009-03-04
|
02 | Dan Romascanu | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-03-12 by Dan Romascanu |
|
2009-03-04
|
02 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Dan Romascanu |
|
2009-03-04
|
02 | Dan Romascanu | Ballot has been issued by Dan Romascanu |
|
2009-03-04
|
02 | Dan Romascanu | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2009-02-23
|
02 | Amanda Baber | IANA Last Call comments: Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments in the "Command Codes" registry at http://iana.org/assignments/aaa-parameters/aaa-parameters.xhtml | Code Value … IANA Last Call comments: Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments in the "Command Codes" registry at http://iana.org/assignments/aaa-parameters/aaa-parameters.xhtml | Code Value | Name | Reference | | tbd Update-Location-Request [3GPP TS 29.272] [RFC-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-01.txt] | | tbd Update-Location-Answer [3GPP TS 29.272] [RFC-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-01.txt] | | tbd Cancel-Location-Request [3GPP TS 29.272] [RFC-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-01.txt] | | tbd Cancel-Location-Answer [3GPP TS 29.272] [RFC-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-01.txt] | | tbd Authentication-Information-Request [3GPP TS 29.272] [RFC-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-01.txt] | | tbd Authentication-Information-Answer [3GPP TS 29.272] [RFC-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-01.txt] | | tbd Insert-Subscriber-Data-Request [3GPP TS 29.272] [RFC-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-01.txt] | | tbd Insert-Subscriber-Data-Answer [3GPP TS 29.272] [RFC-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-01.txt] | | tbd Delete-Subscriber-Data-Request [3GPP TS 29.272] [RFC-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-01.txt] | | tbd Delete-Subscriber-Data-Answer [3GPP TS 29.272] [RFC-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-01.txt] | | tbd Purge-UE-Request [3GPP TS 29.272] [RFC-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-01.txt] | | tbd Purge-UE-Answer [3GPP TS 29.272] [RFC-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-01.txt] | | tbd Reset-Request [3GPP TS 29.272] [RFC-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-01.txt] | | tbd Reset-Answer [3GPP TS 29.272] [RFC-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-01.txt] | | tbd Notify-Request [3GPP TS 29.272] [RFC-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-01.txt] | | tbd Notify-Answer [3GPP TS 29.272] [RFC-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-01.txt] | | tbd ME-Identity-Check-Request [3GPP TS 29.272] [RFC-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-01.txt] | | tbd ME-Identity-Check-Answer [3GPP TS 29.272] [RFC-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-01.txt] | We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this document. |
|
2009-02-06
|
02 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Susan Thomson |
|
2009-02-06
|
02 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Susan Thomson |
|
2009-02-05
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
|
2009-02-05
|
02 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
|
2009-02-05
|
02 | Dan Romascanu | AD Review by Dan Romascanu: I have reviewed this AD-sponsored individual submission I-D. I believe that it is ready for IETF Last Call. The comments … AD Review by Dan Romascanu: I have reviewed this AD-sponsored individual submission I-D. I believe that it is ready for IETF Last Call. The comments below can be treated as Last Call comments and dealt with together with the other IETF Last Call comments. 1. It would be useful to explain in a few words what is the scope of the 3GPP S6a and 3GPP S13 applications - the current descriptions in the I-D (vendor-specific application id ...) say nothing about the functionality. For example: 'The S6a application describes the subscriber information between MME and HSS as defined in section 5 of [TS29.272]', 'The S13 application enables the ME identity check procedure between the MME and the EIR as defined in section 6 of [TS29.272]'. 2. In section 4 in the table of command codes values that will be requested from IANA add '3GPP' to the name of each command in order to avoid confusions and names clashes with other similar requests that may be made to IANA. For example '3GPP-Update-Location-Request', etc. 3. The name of the document referred by [TS29.272] seems to have changed since the submission of the I-D. Please use the most recent name. |
|
2009-02-05
|
02 | Dan Romascanu | State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Dan Romascanu |
|
2009-02-05
|
02 | Dan Romascanu | Last Call was requested by Dan Romascanu |
|
2009-02-05
|
02 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2009-02-05
|
02 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2009-02-05
|
02 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2009-01-05
|
02 | 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 Hannes Tschofenig. 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 is an AD sponsored document. It has been reviewed by Hannes Tschofenig (DIME WG co-chair) and Victor Fajardo (DIME WG secretary). Additionally, Glen Zorn has provided a review. Since the work this document is based on has been done in the 3GPP the referenced specification, namely TS 29.272, has received a fair amount of review. This document falls within a category of Diameter documents that have recently been submitted to the IESG for allocation of Command Codes, such as http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sun-dime-itu-t-rw-02 and http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5224. (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. No IPR disclosures are known. (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? This document is not a working group item of the DIME working group. However, the group discussed the desire by other SDOs to develop Diameter extensions without the need todo their work within the IETF, if necessary. (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 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 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 references split into normative and informative subsections. There normative reference section points to a 3GPP specification: [TS29.272] 3rd Generation Partnership Project, "3GPP TS 29.272 V8.0.0; Technical Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; Evolved Packet System; MME and SGSN Related Interfaces Based on Diameter Protocol (Release 8)", http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/29272.htm, 09 2008. (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 and is the most important part of the document as it asks IANA to register new Diameter Command Codes. The values are added to an existing registry established by the Diameter Base specification. (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 does not contain text written in a formal language. (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 registers a set of IANA Diameter Command Codes to be used in new vendor-specific Diameter applications defined for the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS). These new Diameter applications are defined for MME and SGSN related interfaces in the Release 8 architecture. Working Group Summary This document is not a DIME working group document but has received review from DIME WG members. Document Quality The document has been reviewed by Hannes Tschofenig, Victor Fajardo and Glen Zorn from the DIME working group. The main work this document is based on has been developed in the 3GPP and has received a fair amount of review. Personnel Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd for this document. |
|
2009-01-05
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested |
|
2008-12-30
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-01.txt |
|
2008-12-22
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00.txt |