Session-Specific Explicit Diameter Request Routing
RFC 6159

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, <iana@iana.org>, <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Informational RFC to be: <draft-tsou-diameter-explicit-routing-05.txt>

The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Session-Specific
Explicit Diameter Request Routing'
<draft-tsou-diameter-explicit-routing-05.txt> as an Informational RFC.

The IESG would also like the RFC-Editor to review the comments in
the datatracker
(http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tsou-diameter-explicit-routing/)
related to this document and determine whether or not they merit
incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot
and the comment log.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tsou-diameter-explicit-routing/

The process for such documents is described at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

Technical Summary

  This document describes a mechanism to enable specific Diameter
   proxies to remain in the path of all message exchanges constituting a
   Diameter session.

Working Group Summary

   The document is an individual submission on the RFC Editor Stream. 

Document Quality

   

Personnel

   Dan Romascanu is the Responsible Area Director

IESG Note

The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done in
the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions (DIME) WG. The DIME WG discussed
a predecessor of this document. There was no consensus in the WG that
the problems addressed by the document are a real concern in existing
Diameter deployments, and there was no consensus that the solutions meet
the architectural principles of the Diameter protocol. As a result the
DIME WG decided not to undertake this work. This relationship does not
prevent publishing, but the IESG strongly encourages three changes if the
RFC Editor chooses to proceed with the publication of this document.

First, the IESG has checked with several other SDOs, and none of them
indicate that this document is needed as a reference for them to progress
their own work.  As such, if the RFC Editor chooses to proceed with the
publication of this document, the IESG strongly encourages the removal
of the following text from the Abstract:

   This document is being published to provide the basis for a
   standardized solution to a problem raised by some architectures
   (e.g., WLAN 3GPP IP access, 3GPP TS23.234) that use Diameter.
   The intended use will be as a reference within the non-IETF
   specification of a Diameter application that meets the needs of
   these architectures.

Second, the document should not claim to represent any aspect of IETF
consensus. Therefore, if the RFC Editor chooses to proceed with the
publication of this document, the IESG strongly encourages the removal
of the following text from the second paragraph of the Introduction:

   The IETF does not endorse this specification because of its impact on
   Diameter session survivability, but do not object to its publication
   for use in specialized situations where the loss of robustness is
   acceptable.

Third, a discussion of the DIME WG discussion should be added to the
body of the document or as an IESG note. If an IESG Note is used,
please include following text:

   Techniques similar to those discussed in this document were discussed
   in the IETF DIME Working Group. The group had no consensus that the
   problems addressed by such work are a real concern in Diameter
   deployments. Furthermore, there was no consensus that the proposed
   solutions are in line with the architectural principles of the Diameter

   protocol. As a result the working group decided not to undertake the
   work. There has also not been a formal request for this functionality
   from any standards body. This RFC represents a continuation of the
   abandoned work. Readers of this specification should be aware that the
   IETF has not reviewed this specification and cannot say anything about
   suitability for a particular purpose or compatibility with the Diameter

   architecture and other extensions.