Shepherd writeup
rfc7068-13

(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?

The document aims for Informational. This is also indicated in
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:

Technical Summary:

The document sets normative requirements for Diameter overload control
solutions. The existing Diameter mechanisms for an overload control are
not sufficient for a practical solution. The document also goes into
lengths explaining why Diameter overload control functionality is needed
and describes the limitations of the existing mechanisms in the Diameter
Base Protocol.

Working Group Summary:

The working group reached a consensus on the document. The discussion
was extensive. Since this document is a requirements document, possible
technical solution space issues are left for future documents and
discussions.

There is an obvious decision point ahead that got quite a bit of attention,
which relates to the dissemination of the overload control information:
whether an explicit overload application is needed for proper end-to-end
signaling semantics or whether everything is piggybacked on top of existing
signaling between adjacent peers in hop-by-hop fashion. However, this is
for the solution space and the requirements document currently allows both
approaches.

Document Quality:

The document has greater industry interest behind, specifically from the
cellular industry. Since the document is a requirement document there are
no standardised solutions available yet due to the absence of the protocol
specification. There is definitive interest from both operators and vendors
to have a standard solution for Diameter overload control.

The requirements document has been extensively reviewed by the 3GPP CT4
working group, which is the main AAA protocol group in 3GPP.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Jouni Korhonen is the document shepherd. The responsible
area director is Benoit Claise.

(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 the IESG.

The shepherd has reviewed the document and did not find issues that
would prohibit forwarding the document to the IESG. The remaining
editorial nature concerns can be addressed during the IETF LC.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the
reviews that have been performed?

The shepherd has no concern on the depth of the reviews so far.
The document has already been reviewed thoroughly by external parties.

(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 took place.

The document needs to be reviewed by OPS-DIR, SecDir and AAA-Doctors.
None of these have not been initiated yet. The reviews should specifically
be done from Diameter deployments point of view and keeping the existing
Diameter security constraints in mind.

(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 concerns here.

No concerns.

(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?

There are no filed IPRs. Also the shepherd has confirmed from each authors
that they are not aware of any IPR claims to the document.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any
WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

There are no filed IPRs.

(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?

There is a WG level consensus behind the document.

(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.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

The document passes the automated IDnits check.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the
MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

This is a requirements document and as such has not need for
MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or
informative?

Yes.

(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?

No.

(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.

No.

(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.

No.

(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).

There are no requirements to IANA.

(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.

None.

(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 needed.
Back