Shepherd writeup
rfc8506-12

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up.

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 and it 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:

Technical Summary

   This document will obsolete RFC4006. This document specifies a Diameter application
   that can be used to implement real-time credit-control for a variety of end user services.

Working Group Summary

  WG has a solid support for this document.

Document Quality

   3GPP has adopted RFC4006 and it has been widely implemented, deployed
   and in production use basically in every cellular carrier with LTE deployment.
   The changes/updates described in this specification are not deployed but
   being one of the core Diameter specifications in 3GPP there are high probability
   it getting a wide deployment. Maintaining backward compatibility was one of the
   design guidelines. The update to RFC4006, which this document is, was  requested
   by 3GPP.
  
   There has not been any expert reviews of the document. 3GPP
   CT3 and CT4 should review the document before its publication.

Personnel

   Jouni Korhonen (jouni.nospam@gmail.com) is the document shepherd.
   Ben Campbell (ben@nostrum.com) 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
the IESG.

   The shepherd was part of the initial team thinking the changes required and how
   to proceed with those. During the publication process the shepherd has done
   review on the parts of the document required when writing the proto write-up.

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

   No.

(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 should be reviewed by AAA doctors and 3GPP CT3/CT4 WGs.

(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.

   None. There is just the generic issue with Diameter enums that has changed
   since the publication of the original RFC4006, which is described in RFC7423
   and reflected in the IANA considerations that list the AVPs type of enum and
   requiring designated expert review.

(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.

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

   No IPRs disclosed with this update of the RFC.

(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?   

   Solid WG 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.) 

   None.

(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
thorough.

   None that matter. Downrefs are discussed in step 15)

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

   None required.

(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?

   None.

(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. 

   Following downward references exists:
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'CE164'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'CE212'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'E164'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'E212'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'EUI64'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO4217'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'TGPPIMEI'

   All these are normative required references to documents/specifications outside IETF.

(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.

   This document obsoletes RFC4006 and it is listed in appropriate places
   in the document. This document is an update based on the original RFC4006.

(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 IANA requirements were checked against RFC8126 not the
   obsoleted RFC5226. The document defines 17 new AVPs that are listed in
   Section 8. No new registries are created.

   The IANA considerations for AVPs of type enum and the associated existing RFC4006
   created IANA registry have a new additional clarification:
  "All remaining values are available for assignment by a Designated Expert [RFC8126],
   under the conditions for enumerated values described in [RFC7423] Section 5.6."

(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.

Back