|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 7423
Last modified on Saturday, November 15th, 2014
 Permanent link to RFC 7423
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 7423
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 7423
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Morand, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7423 Orange Labs
BCP: 193 V. Fajardo
Category: Best Current Practice Fluke Networks
ISSN: 2070-1721 H. Tschofenig
November 2014
Diameter Applications Design Guidelines
 Abstract
The Diameter base protocol provides facilities for protocol
extensibility enabling the definition of new Diameter applications or
modification of existing applications. This document is a companion
document to the Diameter base protocol that further explains and
clarifies the rules to extend Diameter. Furthermore, this document
provides guidelines to Diameter application designers reusing/
defining Diameter applications or creating generic Diameter
extensions.
Status of This Memo
This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7423.
Morand, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 1 
RFC 7423 Diameter Applications Design Guidelines November 2014
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Morand, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 2
RFC 7423 Diameter Applications Design Guidelines November 2014
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Reusing Existing Diameter Applications . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Adding a New Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Deleting an Existing Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Reusing Existing Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3.1. Adding AVPs to a Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3.2. Deleting AVPs from a Command . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3.3. Changing the Flag Settings of AVP in Existing
Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. Reusing Existing AVPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4.1. Setting of the AVP Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4.2. Reuse of AVP of Type Enumerated . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Defining New Diameter Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. Defining New Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3. Use of Application Id in a Message . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.4. Application-Specific Session State Machines . . . . . . . 14
5.5. Session-Id AVP and Session Management . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.6. Use of Enumerated Type AVPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.7. Application-Specific Message Routing . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.8. Translation Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.9. End-to-End Application Capabilities Exchange . . . . . . 18
5.10. Diameter Accounting Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.11. Diameter Security Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6. Defining Generic Diameter Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. Guidelines for Registrations of Diameter Values . . . . . . . 23
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Morand, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 3
RFC 7423 Diameter Applications Design Guidelines November 2014
1. Introduction
The Diameter base protocol [RFC 6733] is intended to provide an
Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) framework for
applications such as network access or IP mobility in both local and
roaming situations. This protocol provides the ability for Diameter
peers to exchange messages carrying data in the form of Attribute-
Value Pairs (AVPs).
The Diameter base protocol provides facilities to extend Diameter
(see Section 1.3 of [RFC 6733]) to support new functionality. In the
context of this document, extending Diameter means one of the
following:
1. The addition of new functionality to an existing Diameter
application without defining a new application.
2. The addition of new functionality to an existing Diameter
application that requires the definition of a new application.
3. The definition of an entirely new Diameter application to offer
functionality not supported by existing applications.
4. The definition of a new generic functionality that can be reused
across different applications.
All of these extensions are design decisions that can be carried out
by any combination of reusing existing or defining new commands,
AVPs, or AVP values. However, application designers do not have
complete freedom when making their design. A number of rules have
been defined in [RFC 6733] that place constraints on when an extension
requires the allocation of a new Diameter application identifier or a
new command code value. The objective of this document is the
following:
o Clarify the Diameter extensibility rules as defined in the
Diameter base protocol.
o Discuss design choices and provide guidelines when defining new
applications.
o Present trade-off choices.
Morand, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 4
RFC 7423 Diameter Applications Design Guidelines November 2014
2. Terminology
This document reuses the terminology defined in [RFC 6733].
Additionally, the following terms and acronyms are used in this
application:
Application: Extension of the Diameter base protocol [RFC 6733] via
the addition of new commands or AVPs. Each application is
uniquely identified by an IANA-allocated application identifier
value.
Command: Diameter request or answer carrying AVPs between Diameter
endpoints. Each command is uniquely identified by an IANA-
allocated Command Code value and is described by a Command Code
Format (CCF) for an application.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119].
3. Overview
As designed, the Diameter base protocol [RFC 6733] can be seen as a
two-layer protocol. The lower layer is mainly responsible for
managing connections between neighboring peers and for message
routing. The upper layer is where the Diameter applications reside.
This model is in line with a Diameter node having an application
layer and a peer-to-peer delivery layer. The Diameter base protocol
document defines the architecture and behavior of the message
delivery layer and then provides the framework for designing Diameter
applications on the application layer. This framework includes
definitions of application sessions and accounting support (see
Sections 8 and 9 of [RFC 6733]). Accordingly, a Diameter node is seen
in this document as a single instance of a Diameter message delivery
layer and one or more Diameter applications using it.
The Diameter base protocol is designed to be extensible and the
principles are described in Section 1.3 of [RFC 6733]. In summary,
Diameter can be extended by the following:
1. Defining new AVP values
2. Creating new AVPs
3. Creating new commands
4. Creating new applications
Morand, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 5
RFC 7423 Diameter Applications Design Guidelines November 2014
As a main guiding principle, application designers SHOULD comply with
the following recommendation: "try to reuse as much as possible!".
It will reduce the time to finalize specification writing, and it
will lead to a smaller implementation effort as well as reduce the
need for testing. In general, it is clever to avoid duplicate effort
when possible.
However, reuse is not appropriate when the existing functionality
does not fit the new requirement and/or the reuse leads to ambiguity.
The impact on extending existing applications can be categorized into
two groups:
Minor Extension: Enhancing the functional scope of an existing
application by the addition of optional features to support it.
Such enhancement has no backward-compatibility issue with the
existing application.
A typical example would be the definition of a new optional AVP
for use in an existing command. Diameter implementations
supporting the existing application but not the new AVP will
simply ignore it, without consequences for the Diameter message
handling, as described in [RFC 6733]. The standardization effort
will be fairly small.
Major Extension: Enhancing an application that requires the
definition of a new Diameter application. Such enhancement causes
a backward-compatibility issue with existing implementations
supporting the application.
Typical examples would be the creation of a new command for
providing functionality not supported by existing applications or
the definition of a new AVP to be carried in an existing command
with the M-bit set in the AVP flags (see Section 4.1 of [RFC 6733]
for definition of "M-bit"). For such an extension, a significant
specification effort is required, and a careful approach is
recommended.
4. Reusing Existing Diameter Applications
An existing application may need to be enhanced to fulfill new
requirements, and these modifications can be at the command level
and/or at the AVP level. The following sections describe the
possible modifications that can be performed on existing applications
and their related impact.
Morand, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 6
RFC 7423 Diameter Applications Design Guidelines November 2014
4.1. Adding a New Command
Adding a new command to an existing application is considered to be a
major extension and requires a new Diameter application to be
defined, as stated in Section 1.3.4 of [RFC 6733]. The need for a new
application is because a Diameter node that is not upgraded to
support the new command(s) within the (existing) application would
reject any unknown command with the protocol error
DIAMETER_COMMAND_UNSUPPORTED and cause the failure of the
transaction. The new application ensures that Diameter nodes only
receive commands within the context of applications they support.
Adding a new command means either defining a completely new command
or importing the command's Command Code Format (CCF) syntax from
another application whereby the new application inherits some or all
of the functionality of the application from which the command came.
In the former case, the decision to create a new application is
straightforward, since this is typically a result of adding a new
functionality that does not exist yet. For the latter, the decision
to create a new application will depend on whether importing the
command in a new application is more suitable than simply using the
existing application as it is in conjunction with any other
application.
An example considers the Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol
(EAP) application [RFC 4072] and the Diameter Network Access Server
application [RFC 7155]. When network access authentication using EAP
is required, the Diameter EAP commands (Diameter-EAP-Request/
Diameter-EAP-Answer) are used; otherwise, the Diameter Network Access
Server application will be used. When the Diameter EAP application
is used, the accounting exchanges defined in the Diameter Network
Access Server may be used.
However, in general, it is difficult to come to a hard guideline, and
so a case-by-case study of each application requirement should be
applied. Before adding or importing a command, application designers
should consider the following:
o Can the new functionality be fulfilled by creating a new command
independent from any existing command? In this case, the
resulting new application and the existing application can work
independent of, but cooperating with, each other.
o Can the existing command be reused without major extensions and,
therefore, without the need for the definition of a new
application, e.g., new functionality introduced by the creation of
new optional AVPs.
Morand, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 7
RFC 7423 Diameter Applications Design Guidelines November 2014
It is important to note that importing commands too liberally could
result in a monolithic and hard-to-manage application supporting too
many different features.
4.2. Deleting an Existing Command
Although this process is not typical, removing a command from an
application requires a new Diameter application to be defined, and
then it is considered as a major extension. This is due to the fact
that the reception of the deleted command would systematically result
in a protocol error (i.e., DIAMETER_COMMAND_UNSUPPORTED).
It is unusual to delete an existing command from an application for
the sake of deleting it or the functionality it represents. An
exception might be if the intent of the deletion is to create a newer
variance of the same application that is somehow simpler than the
application initially specified.
4.3. Reusing Existing Commands
This section discusses rules in adding and/or deleting AVPs from an
existing command of an existing application. The cases described in
this section may not necessarily result in the creation of new
applications.
From a historical point of view, it is worth noting that there was a
strong recommendation to reuse existing commands in [RFC 3588] to
prevent rapid depletion of code values available for vendor-specific
commands. However, [RFC 6733] has relaxed the allocation policy and
enlarged the range of available code values for vendor-specific
applications. Although reuse of existing commands is still
RECOMMENDED, protocol designers can consider defining a new command
when it provides a solution more suitable than the twisting of an
existing command's use and applications.
4.3.1. Adding AVPs to a Command
Based on the rules in [RFC 6733], AVPs that are added to an existing
command can be categorized as either:
o Mandatory (to understand) AVPs. As defined in [RFC 6733], these
are AVPs with the M-bit flag set in this command, which means that
the Diameter node receiving them is required to understand not
only their values but also their semantics. Failure to do so will
cause a message handling error: either an error message with the
result-code set to DIAMETER_AVP_UNSUPPORTED if the AVP is not
understood in a request or an application-specific error handling
if the given AVP is in an answer.
Morand, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 8
RFC 7423 Diameter Applications Design Guidelines November 2014
o Optional (to understand) AVPs. As defined in [RFC 6733], these are
AVPs with the M-bit flag cleared in this command. A Diameter node
receiving these AVPs can simply ignore them if it does not support
them.
It is important to note that the definitions given above are
independent of whether these AVPs are required or optional in the
command as specified by the command's CCF syntax [RFC 6733].
NOTE: As stated in [RFC 6733], the M-bit setting for a given AVP is
relevant to an application and each command within that
application that includes the AVP.
The rules are strict in the case where the AVPs to be added in an
exiting command are mandatory to understand, i.e., they have the
M-bit set. A mandatory AVP MUST NOT be added to an existing command
without defining a new Diameter application, as stated in [RFC 6733].
This falls into the "Major Extensions" category. Despite the clarity
of the rule, ambiguity still arises when evaluating whether a new AVP
being added should be mandatory to begin with. Application designers
should consider the following questions when deciding about the M-bit
for a new AVP:
o Would it be required for the receiving side to be able to process
and understand the AVP and its content?
o Would the new AVPs change the state machine of the application?
o Would the presence of the new AVP lead to a different number of
round trips, effectively changing the state machine of the
application?
o Would the new AVP be used to differentiate between old and new
variances of the same application whereby the two variances are
not backward compatible?
o Would the new AVP have duality in meaning, i.e., be used to carry
application-related information as well as to indicate that the
message is for a new application?
If the answer to at least one of the questions is "yes", then the
M-bit MUST be set for the new AVP, and a new Diameter application
MUST be defined. This list of questions is non-exhaustive, and other
criteria MAY be taken into account in the decision process.
Morand, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 9
RFC 7423 Diameter Applications Design Guidelines November 2014
If application designers are instead contemplating the use of
optional AVPs, i.e., with the M-bit cleared, there are still pitfalls
that will cause interoperability problems; therefore, they must be
avoided. Some examples of these pitfalls are as follows:
o Use of optional AVPs with intersecting meaning. One AVP has
partially the same usage and meaning as another AVP. The presence
of both can lead to confusion.
o Optional AVPs with dual purpose, i.e., to carry application data
as well as to indicate support for one or more features. This has
a tendency to introduce interpretation issues.
o Adding one or more optional AVPs and indicating (usually within
descriptive text for the command) that at least one of them has to
be understood by the receiver of the command. This would be
equivalent to adding a mandatory AVP, i.e., an AVP with the M-bit
set, to the command.
4.3.2. Deleting AVPs from a Command
Application designers may want to reuse an existing command, but some
of the AVPs present in the command's CCF syntax specification may be
irrelevant for the functionality foreseen to be supported by this
command. It may be then tempting to delete those AVPs from the
command.
The impacts of deleting an AVP from a command depends on its Command
Code format specification and M-bit setting:
o Case 1: Deleting an AVP that is indicated as a required AVP (noted
as {AVP}) in the command's CCF syntax specification (regardless of
the M-bit setting).
In this case, a new Command Code, and subsequently a new Diameter
application, MUST be specified.
o Case 2: Deleting an AVP, which has the M-bit set, and is indicated
as an optional AVP (noted as [AVP] in the command CCF) in the
command's CCF syntax specification.
In this case, no new Command Code has to be specified, but the
definition of a new Diameter application is REQUIRED.
o Case 3: Deleting an AVP, which has the M-bit cleared, and is
indicated as [AVP] in the command's CCF syntax specification.
In this case, the AVP can be deleted without consequences.
Morand, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 10
RFC 7423 Diameter Applications Design Guidelines November 2014
Application designers SHOULD attempt to reuse the command's CCF
syntax specification without modification and simply ignore (but not
delete) any optional AVPs that will not be used. This is to maintain
compatibility with existing applications that will not know about the
new functionality as well as to maintain the integrity of existing
dictionaries.
4.3.3. Changing the Flag Settings of AVP in Existing Commands
Although unusual, implementors may want to change the setting of the
AVP flags a given AVP used in a command.
Into an existing command, an AVP that was initially defined as a
mandatory AVP to understand, i.e., an AVP with the M-bit flag set in
the command MAY be safely turned to an optional AVP, i.e., with the
M-bit cleared. Any node supporting the existing application will
still understand the AVP, whatever the setting of the M-bit. On the
contrary, an AVP initially defined as an optional AVP to understand,
i.e., an AVP with the M-bit flag cleared in the command MUST NOT be
changed into a mandatory AVP with the M-bit flag set without defining
a new Diameter application. Setting the M-bit for an AVP that was
defined as an optional AVP is equivalent to adding a new mandatory
AVP to an existing command, and the rules given in Section 4.3.1
apply.
All other AVP flags (V-bit, P-bit, reserved bits) MUST remain
unchanged.
4.4. Reusing Existing AVPs
This section discusses rules in reusing existing AVPs when reusing an
existing command or defining a new command in a new application.
4.4.1. Setting of the AVP Flags
When reusing existing AVPs in a new application, application
designers MUST specify the setting of the M-bit flag for a new
Diameter application and, if necessary, for every command of the
application that can carry these AVPs. In general, for AVPs defined
outside of the Diameter base protocol, the characteristics of an AVP
are tied to its role within a given application and the commands used
in this application.
All other AVP flags (V-bit, P-bit, reserved bits) MUST remain
unchanged.
Morand, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 11
RFC 7423 Diameter Applications Design Guidelines November 2014
4.4.2. Reuse of AVP of Type Enumerated
When reusing an AVP of type Enumerated in a command for a new
application, it is RECOMMENDED to avoid modifying the set of valid
values defined for this AVP. Modifying the set of Enumerated values
includes adding a value or deprecating the use of a value defined
initially for the AVP. Modifying the set of values will impact the
application defining this AVP and all the applications using this
AVP, causing potential interoperability issues: a value used by a
peer that will not be recognized by all the nodes between the client
and the server will cause an error response with the Result-Code AVP
set to DIAMETER_INVALID_AVP_VALUE. When the full range of values
defined for this Enumerated AVP is not suitable for the new
application, it is RECOMMENDED that a new AVP be defined to avoid
backward-compatibility issues with existing implementations.
5. Defining New Diameter Applications
5.1. Introduction
This section discusses the case where new applications have
requirements that cannot be fulfilled by existing applications and
would require definition of completely new commands, AVPs, and/or AVP
values. Typically, there is little ambiguity about the decision to
create these types of applications. Some examples are the interfaces
defined for the IP Multimedia Subsystem of 3GPP, e.g., Cx/Dx
([TS29.228] and [TS29.229]), Sh ([TS29.328] and [TS29.329]), etc.
Application designers SHOULD try to import existing AVPs and AVP
values for any newly defined commands. In certain cases where
accounting will be used, the models described in Section 5.10 SHOULD
also be considered.
Additional considerations are described in the following sections.
5.2. Defining New Commands
As a general recommendation, commands SHOULD NOT be defined from
scratch. It is instead RECOMMENDED to reuse an existing command
offering similar functionality and use it as a starting point. Code
reuse leads to a smaller implementation effort as well as reduces the
need for testing.
Moreover, the new command's CCF syntax specification SHOULD be
carefully defined when considering applicability and extensibility of
the application. If most of the AVPs contained in the command are
indicated as fixed or required, it might be difficult to reuse the
same command and, therefore, the same application in a slightly
Morand, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 12
RFC 7423 Diameter Applications Design Guidelines November 2014
changed environment. Defining a command with most of the AVPs
indicated as optional is considered as a good design choice in many
cases, despite the flexibility it introduces in the protocol.
Protocol designers MUST clearly state the reasons why these optional
AVPs might or might not be present and properly define the
corresponding behavior of the Diameter nodes when these AVPs are
absent from the command.
NOTE: As a hint for protocol designers, it is not sufficient to
just look at the command's CCF syntax specification. It is also
necessary to carefully read through the accompanying text in the
specification.
In the same way, the CCF syntax specification SHOULD be defined such
that it will be possible to add any arbitrary optional AVPs with the
M-bit cleared (including vendor-specific AVPs) without modifying the
application. For this purpose, "* [AVP]" SHOULD be added in the
command's CCF, which allows the addition of any arbitrary number of
optional AVPs as described in [RFC 6733].
5.3. Use of Application Id in a Message
When designing new applications, application designers SHOULD specify
that the Application Id carried in all session-level messages is the
Application Id of the application using those messages. This
includes the session-level messages defined in the Diameter base
protocol, i.e., Re-Auth-Request (RAR) / Re-Auth-Answer (RAA),
Session-Termination-Request (STR) / Session-Termination-Answer (STA),
Abort-Session-Request (ASR) / Abort-Session-Answer (ASA), and
possibly Accounting-Request (ACR) / Accounting Answer (ACA) in the
coupled accounting model; see Section 5.10. Some existing
specifications do not adhere to this rule for historical reasons.
However, this guidance SHOULD be followed by new applications to
avoid routing problems.
When a new application has been allocated with a new Application Id
and it also reuses existing commands with or without modifications,
the commands SHOULD use the newly allocated Application Id in the
header and in all relevant Application-Id AVPs (Auth-Application-Id
or Acct-Application-Id) present in the commands message body.
Additionally, application designers using a vendor-specific
Application-Id AVP SHOULD NOT use the Vendor-Id AVP to further
dissect or differentiate the vendor-specification Application Id.
Diameter routing is not based on the Vendor Id. As such, the Vendor
Id SHOULD NOT be used as an additional input for routing or delivery
of messages. The Vendor-Id AVP is an informational AVP only and kept
for backward compatibility reasons.
Morand, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 13
RFC 7423 Diameter Applications Design Guidelines November 2014
5.4. Application-Specific Session State Machines
Section 8 of [RFC 6733] provides session state machines for AAA
services, and these session state machines are not intended to cover
behavior outside of AAA. If a new application cannot clearly be
categorized into any of these AAA services, it is RECOMMENDED that
the application define its own session state machine. Support for a
server-initiated request is a clear example where an application-
specific session state machine would be needed, for example, the Rw
interface for the ITU-T push model (cf. [Q.3303.3]).
5.5. Session-Id AVP and Session Management
Diameter applications are usually designed with the aim of managing
user sessions (e.g., Diameter Network Access Server (NAS) application
[RFC 4005]) or a specific service access session (e.g., Diameter SIP
application [RFC 4740]). In the Diameter base protocol, session state
is referenced using the Session-Id AVP. All Diameter messages that
use the same Session-Id will be bound to the same session. Diameter-
based session management also implies that both the Diameter client
and server (and potentially proxy agents along the path) maintain
session state information.
However, some applications may not need to rely on the Session-Id to
identify and manage sessions because other information can be used
instead to correlate Diameter messages. Indeed, the User-Name AVP or
any other specific AVP can be present in every Diameter message and
used, therefore, for message correlation. Some applications might
not require the notion of the Diameter-session concept at all. For
such applications, the Auth-Session-State AVP is usually set to
NO_STATE_MAINTAINED in all Diameter messages, and these applications
are, therefore, designed as a set of stand-alone transactions. Even
if an explicit access session termination is required, application-
specific commands are defined and used instead of the STR/STA or ASR/
ASA defined in the Diameter base protocol [RFC 6733]. In such a case,
the Session-Id is not significant.
Based on these considerations, protocol designers should carefully
appraise whether the Diameter application being defined relies on the
session management specified in the Diameter base protocol:
o If it is, the Diameter command defined for the new application
MUST include the Session-Id AVP defined in the Diameter base
protocol [RFC 6733], and the Session-Id AVP MUST be used for
correlation of messages related to the same session. Guidance on
the use of the Auth-Session-State AVP is given in the Diameter
base protocol [RFC 6733].
Morand, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 14
RFC 7423 Diameter Applications Design Guidelines November 2014
o Otherwise, because session management is not required or the
application relies on its own session management mechanism,
Diameter commands for the application need not include the
Session-Id AVP. If any specific session management concept is
supported by the application, the application documentation MUST
clearly specify how the session is handled between the client and
server (and possibly Diameter agents in the path). Moreover,
because the application is not maintaining session state at the
Diameter base protocol level, the Auth-Session-State AVP MUST be
included in all Diameter commands for the application and MUST be
set to NO_STATE_MAINTAINED.
5.6. Use of Enumerated Type AVPs
The type Enumerated was initially defined to provide a list of valid
values for an AVP with their respective interpretation described in
the specification. For instance, AVPs of type Enumerated can be used
to provide further information on the reason for the termination of a
session or a specific action to perform upon the reception of the
request.
As described in Section 4.4.2 above, defining an AVP of type
Enumerated presents some limitations in terms of extensibility and
reusability. Indeed, the finite set of valid values defined in the
definition of the AVP of type Enumerated cannot be modified in
practice without causing backward-compatibility issues with existing
implementations. As a consequence, AVPs of type Enumerated MUST NOT
be extended by adding new values to support new capabilities.
Diameter protocol designers SHOULD carefully consider before defining
an Enumerated AVP whether the set of values will remain unchanged or
new values may be required in the near future. If such an extension
is foreseen or cannot be avoided, it is RECOMMENDED to define AVPs of
type Unsigned32 or Unsigned64 in which the data field would contain
an address space representing "values" that would have the same use
of Enumerated values. Whereas only the initial values defined at the
definition of the AVP of type Enumerated are valid as described in
Section 4.4.2, any value from the address space from 0 to 2^32 - 1
for AVPs of type Unsigned32 or from 0 to 2^64 - 1 for AVPs of type
Unsigned64 is valid at the Diameter base protocol level and will not
cause interoperability issues for intermediary nodes between clients
and servers. Only clients and servers will be able to process the
values at the application layer.
Morand, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 15
RFC 7423 Diameter Applications Design Guidelines November 2014
For illustration, an AVP describing possible access networks would be
defined as follows:
Access-Network-Type AVP (XXX) is of type Unsigned32 and
contains a 32-bit address space representing types of access
networks. This application defines the following classes of access
networks, all identified by the thousands digit in the decimal
notation:
o 1xxx (Mobile Access Networks)
o 2xxx (Fixed Access Networks)
o 3xxx (Wireless Access Networks)
Values that fall within the Mobile Access Networks category are used
to inform a peer that a request has been sent for a user attached to
a mobile access network. The following values are defined in this
application:
1001: 3GPP-GERAN
The user is attached to a Global System for Mobile Communications
(GSM) Enhanced Data rates for GSM Evolution (EDGE) Radio Access
Network.
1002: 3GPP-UTRAN-FDD
The user is attached to a Universal Mobile Telecommunications
System (UMTS) access network that uses frequency-division
duplexing for duplexing.
Unlike Enumerated AVP, any new value can be added in the address
space defined by this Unsigned32 AVP without modifying the definition
of the AVP. There is, therefore, no risk of backward-compatibility
issues, especially when intermediate nodes may be present between
Diameter endpoints.
Along the same line, AVPs of type Enumerated are too often used as a
simple Boolean flag, indicating, for instance, a specific permission
or capability; therefore, only three values are defined, e.g., TRUE/
FALSE, AUTHORIZED/UNAUTHORIZED, or SUPPORTED/UNSUPPORTED. This is a
sub-optimal design since it limits the extensibility of the
application: any new capability/permission would have to be supported
by a new AVP or new Enumerated value of the already-defined AVP, with
the backward-compatibility issues described above. Instead of using
an Enumerated AVP for a Boolean flag, protocol designers SHOULD use
AVPs of type Unsigned32 or Unsigned64 in which the data field would
Morand, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 16
RFC 7423 Diameter Applications Design Guidelines November 2014
be defined as a bit mask whose bit settings are described in the
relevant Diameter application specification. Such AVPs can be reused
and extended without major impact on the Diameter application. The
bit mask SHOULD leave room for future additions. Examples of AVPs
that use bit masks are the Session-Binding AVP defined in [RFC 6733]
and the MIP6-Feature-Vector AVP defined in [RFC 5447].
5.7. Application-Specific Message Routing
As described in [RFC 6733], a Diameter request that needs to be sent
to a home server serving a specific realm, but not to a specific
server (such as the first request of a series of round trips), will
contain a Destination-Realm AVP and no Destination-Host AVP.
For such a request, the message routing usually relies only on the
Destination-Realm AVP and the Application Id present in the request
message header. However, some applications may need to rely on the
User-Name AVP or any other application-specific AVPs present in the
request to determine the final destination of a request, e.g., to
find the target AAA server hosting the authorization information for
a given user when multiple AAA servers are addressable in the realm.
In such a context, basic routing mechanisms described in [RFC 6733]
are not fully suitable, and additional application-level routing
mechanisms MUST be described in the application documentation to
provide such specific AVP-based routing. Such functionality will be
basically hosted by an application-specific proxy agent that will be
responsible for routing decisions based on the received specific
AVPs.
Examples of such application-specific routing functions can be found
in the Cx/Dx applications ([TS29.228] and [TS29.229]) of the 3GPP IP
Multimedia Subsystem, in which the proxy agent (Subscriber Location
Function, aka SLF) uses specific application-level identities found
in the request to determine the final destination of the message.
Whatever the criteria used to establish the routing path of the
request, the routing of the answer MUST follow the reverse path of
the request, as described in [RFC 6733], with the answer being sent to
the source of the received request, using transaction states and
hop-by-hop identifier matching. This ensures that the Diameter relay
or proxy agents in the request routing path will be able to release
the transaction state upon receipt of the corresponding answer,
avoiding unnecessary failover. Moreover, especially in roaming
cases, proxy agents in the path must be able to apply local policies
when receiving the answer from the server during authentication/
authorization and/or accounting procedures and maintain up-to-date
session state information by keeping track of all authorized active
Morand, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 17
RFC 7423 Diameter Applications Design Guidelines November 2014
sessions. Therefore, application designers MUST NOT modify the
answer-routing principles described in [RFC 6733] when defining a new
application.
5.8. Translation Agents
As defined in [RFC 6733], a translation agent is a device that
provides interworking between Diameter and another AAA protocol, such
as RADIUS.
In the case of RADIUS, it was initially thought that defining the
translation function would be straightforward by adopting a few basic
principles, e.g., by the use of a shared range of code values for
RADIUS attributes and Diameter AVPs. Guidelines for implementing a
RADIUS-Diameter translation agent were put into the Diameter NAS
Application [RFC 4005].
However, it was acknowledged that such a translation mechanism was
not so obvious and deeper protocol analysis was required to ensure
efficient interworking between RADIUS and Diameter. Moreover, the
interworking requirements depend on the functionalities provided by
the Diameter application under specification, and a case-by-case
analysis is required. As a consequence, all the material related to
RADIUS-to-Diameter translation is removed from the new version of the
Diameter NAS Application specification [RFC 7155], which deprecates
RFC 4005 [RFC 4005].
Therefore, protocol designers SHOULD NOT assume the availability of a
"standard" Diameter-to-RADIUS gateway agent when planning to
interoperate with the RADIUS infrastructure. They SHOULD specify the
required translation mechanism along with the Diameter application,
if needed. This recommendation applies for any kind of translation.
5.9. End-to-End Application Capabilities Exchange
Diameter applications can rely on optional AVPs to exchange
application-specific capabilities and features. These AVPs can be
exchanged on an end-to-end basis at the application layer. Examples
of this can be found with the MIP6-Feature-Vector AVP in [RFC 5447]
and the QoS-Capability AVP in [RFC 5777].
End-to-end capabilities AVPs can be added as optional AVPs with the
M-bit cleared to existing applications to announce support of new
functionality. Receivers that do not understand these AVPs or the
AVP values can simply ignore them, as stated in [RFC 6733]. When
supported, receivers of these AVPs can discover the additional
functionality supported by the Diameter endpoint originating the
request and behave accordingly when processing the request. Senders
Morand, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 18
RFC 7423 Diameter Applications Design Guidelines November 2014
of these AVPs can safely assume the receiving endpoint does not
support any functionality carried by the AVP if it is not present in
the corresponding response. This is useful in cases where deployment
choices are offered, and the generic design can be made available for
a number of applications.
When used in a new application, these end-to-end capabilities AVPs
SHOULD be added as an optional AVP into the CCF of the commands used
by the new application. Protocol designers SHOULD clearly specify
this end-to-end capabilities exchange and the corresponding behavior
of the Diameter nodes supporting the application.
It is also important to note that this end-to-end capabilities
exchange relying on the use of optional AVPs is not meant as a
generic mechanism to support extensibility of Diameter applications
with arbitrary functionality. When the added features drastically
change the Diameter application or when Diameter agents must be
upgraded to support the new features, a new application SHOULD be
defined, as recommended in [RFC 6733].
5.10. Diameter Accounting Support
Accounting can be treated as an auxiliary application that is used in
support of other applications. In most cases, accounting support is
required when defining new applications. This document provides two
possible models for using accounting:
Split Accounting Model:
In this model, the accounting messages will use the Diameter base
accounting Application Id (value of 3). The design implication
for this is that the accounting is treated as an independent
application, especially for Diameter routing. This means that
accounting commands emanating from an application may be routed
separately from the rest of the other application messages. This
may also imply that the messages end up in a central accounting
server. A split accounting model is a good design choice when:
* The application itself does not define its own accounting
commands.
* The overall system architecture permits the use of centralized
accounting for one or more Diameter applications.
Centralizing accounting may have advantages, but there are also
drawbacks. The model assumes that the accounting server can
differentiate received accounting messages. Since the received
accounting messages can be for any application and/or service, the
Morand, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 19
RFC 7423 Diameter Applications Design Guidelines November 2014
accounting server MUST have a method to match accounting messages
with applications and/or services being accounted for. This may
mean defining new AVPs; checking the presence, absence, or
contents of existing AVPs; or checking the contents of the
accounting record itself. One of these means could be to insert
into the request sent to the accounting server an
Auth-Application-Id AVP containing the identifier of the
application for which the accounting request is sent. But in
general, there is no clean and generic scheme for sorting these
messages. Therefore, this model SHOULD NOT be used when all
received accounting messages cannot be clearly identified and
sorted. For most cases, the use of the Coupled Accounting Model
is RECOMMENDED.
Coupled Accounting Model:
In this model, the accounting messages will use the Application Id
of the application using the accounting service. The design
implication for this is that the accounting messages are tightly
coupled with the application itself, meaning that accounting
messages will be routed like the other application messages. It
would then be the responsibility of the application server
(application entity receiving the ACR message) to send the
accounting records carried by the accounting messages to the
proper accounting server. The application server is also
responsible for formulating a proper response (ACA). A coupled
accounting model is a good design choice when:
* The system architecture or deployment does not provide an
accounting server that supports Diameter. Consequently, the
application server MUST be provisioned to use a different
protocol to access the accounting server, e.g., via the
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP), SOAP, etc. This
case includes the support of older accounting systems that are
not Diameter aware.
* The system architecture or deployment requires that the
accounting service for the specific application should be
handled by the application itself.
In all cases above, there will generally be no direct Diameter
access to the accounting server.
These models provide a basis for using accounting messages.
Application designers may obviously deviate from these models
provided that the factors being addressed here have also been taken
Morand, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 20
RFC 7423 Diameter Applications Design Guidelines November 2014
into account. As a general recommendation, application designers
SHOULD NOT define a new set of commands to carry application-specific
accounting records.
5.11. Diameter Security Mechanisms
As specified in [RFC 6733], the Diameter message exchange SHOULD be
secured between neighboring Diameter peers using Transport Layer
Security (TLS) / TCP or Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) /
Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP). However, IPsec MAY also
be deployed to secure communication between Diameter peers. When
IPsec is used instead of TLS or DTLS, the following recommendations
apply.
IPsec Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) [RFC 4301] in transport
mode with non-null encryption and authentication algorithms MUST be
used to provide per-packet authentication, integrity protection, and
confidentiality and to support the replay protection mechanisms of
IPsec. Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) [RFC 7296]
SHOULD be used for performing mutual authentication and for
establishing and maintaining security associations (SAs).
Version 1 of IKE (IKEv1), defined in [RFC 2409], was initially used
for peer authentication, negotiation of security associations, and
key management in RFC 3588 [RFC 3588]. For easier migration from the
obsoleted implementations based on IKEv1 to IKEv2, both RSA digital
signatures and pre-shared keys SHOULD be supported in IKEv2.
However, if IKEv1 is used, implementors SHOULD follow the guidelines
given in Section 13.1 of RFC 3588 [RFC 3588].
6. Defining Generic Diameter Extensions
Generic Diameter extensions are AVPs, commands, or applications that
are designed to support other Diameter applications. They are
auxiliary applications meant to improve or enhance the Diameter
protocol itself or Diameter applications/functionality. Some
examples include the extensions to support realm-based redirection of
Diameter requests (see [RFC 7075]), conveying a specific set of
priority parameters influencing the distribution of resources (see
[RFC 6735]), and the support for QoS AVPs (see [RFC 5777]).
Morand, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 21
RFC 7423 Diameter Applications Design Guidelines November 2014
Since generic extensions may cover many aspects of Diameter and
Diameter applications, it is not possible to enumerate all scenarios.
However, some of the most common considerations are as follows:
Backward Compatibility:
When defining generic extensions designed to be supported by
existing Diameter applications, protocol designers MUST consider
the potential impacts of the introduction of the new extension on
the behavior of the node that would not be yet upgraded to
support/understand this new extension. Designers MUST also ensure
that new extensions do not break expected message delivery layer
behavior.
Forward Compatibility:
Protocol designers MUST ensure that their design will not
introduce undue restrictions for future applications.
Trade-off in Signaling:
Designers may have to choose between the use of optional AVPs
piggybacked onto existing commands versus defining new commands
and applications. Optional AVPs are simpler to implement and may
not need changes to existing applications. However, this ties the
sending of extension data to the application's transmission of a
message. This has consequences if the application and the
extensions have different timing requirements. The use of
commands and applications solves this issue, but the trade-off is
the additional complexity of defining and deploying a new
application. It is left up to the designer to find a good balance
among these trade-offs based on the requirements of the extension.
In practice, generic extensions often use optional AVPs because they
are simple and non-intrusive to the application that would carry
them. Peers that do not support the generic extensions need not
understand nor recognize these optional AVPs. However, it is
RECOMMENDED that the authors of the extension specify the context or
usage of the optional AVPs. As an example, in the case that the AVP
can be used only by a specific set of applications, then the
specification MUST enumerate these applications and the scenarios
when the optional AVPs will be used. In the case where the optional
AVPs can be carried by any application, it should be sufficient to
specify such a use case and perhaps provide specific examples of
applications using them.
Morand, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 22
RFC 7423 Diameter Applications Design Guidelines November 2014
In most cases, these optional AVPs piggybacked by applications would
be defined as a Grouped AVP, and it would encapsulate all the
functionality of the generic extension. In practice, it is not
uncommon that the Grouped AVP will encapsulate an existing AVP that
has previously been defined as mandatory ('M'-bit set), e.g., 3GPP IP
Multimedia Subsystems (IMS) Cx/Dx interfaces ([TS29.228] and
[TS29.229]).
7. Guidelines for Registrations of Diameter Values
As summarized in Section 3 of this document and further described in
Section 1.3 of [RFC 6733], there are four main ways to extend
Diameter. The process for defining new functionality slightly varies
based on the different extensions. This section provides protocol
designers with some guidance regarding the definition of values for
possible Diameter extensions and the necessary interaction with IANA
to register the new functionality.
a. Defining New AVP Values
The specifications defining AVPs and AVP values MUST provide
guidance for defining new values and the corresponding policy for
adding these values. For example, RFC 5777 [RFC 5777] defines the
Treatment-Action AVP, which contains a list of valid values
corresponding to predefined actions (drop, shape, mark, permit).
This set of values can be extended following the Specification
Required policy defined in [RFC 5226]. As a second example, the
Diameter base specification [RFC 6733] defines the Result-Code AVP
that contains a 32-bit address space used to identity possible
errors. According to Section 11.3.2 of [RFC 6733], new values can
be assigned by IANA via an IETF Review process [RFC 5226].
b. Creating New AVPs
Two different types of AVP Codes namespaces can be used to create
a new AVP:
* IETF AVP Codes namespace.
* Vendor-specific AVP Codes namespace.
In the latter case, a vendor needs to be first assigned by IANA
with a private enterprise number, which can be used within the
Vendor-Id field of the vendor-specific AVP. This enterprise
number delimits a private namespace in which the vendor is
responsible for vendor-specific AVP code value assignment. The
absence of a Vendor Id or a Vendor-Id value of zero (0) in the AVP
header identifies standard AVPs from the IETF AVP Codes namespace
Morand, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 23
RFC 7423 Diameter Applications Design Guidelines November 2014
managed by IANA. The allocation of code values from the IANA-
managed namespace is conditioned by an Expert Review of the
specification defining the AVPs or an IETF Review if a block of
AVPs needs to be assigned. Moreover, the remaining bits of the
AVP Flags field of the AVP header are also assigned via Standards
Action if the creation of new AVP flags is desired.
c. Creating New Commands
Unlike the AVP Codes namespace, the Command Code namespace is
flat, but the range of values is subdivided into three chunks with
distinct IANA registration policies:
* A range of standard Command Code values that are allocated via
IETF Review;
* A range of vendor-specific Command Code values that are
allocated on a first-come, first-served basis; and
* A range of values reserved only for experimental and testing
purposes.
As for AVP flags, the remaining bits of the Command Flags field of
the Diameter header are also assigned via a Standards Action to
create new Command flags if required.
d. Creating New Applications
Similarly, to the Command Code namespace, the Application-Id
namespace is flat but divided into two distinct ranges:
* A range of values reserved for standard Application Ids,
allocated after Expert Review of the specification defining the
standard application.
* A range for values for vendor-specific applications, allocated
by IANA on a first-come, first-served basis.
The IANA AAA parameters page can be found at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/aaa-parameters>, and the enterprise
number IANA page is available at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/
enterprise-numbers>. More details on the policies followed by IANA
for namespace management (e.g., first-come, first-served; Expert
Review; IETF Review; etc.) can be found in [RFC 5226].
Morand, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 24
RFC 7423 Diameter Applications Design Guidelines November 2014
NOTE: When the same functionality/extension is used by more than
one vendor, it is RECOMMENDED that a standard extension be
defined. Moreover, a vendor-specific extension SHOULD be
registered to avoid interoperability issues in the same network.
With this aim, the registration policy of a vendor-specific
extension has been simplified with the publication of [RFC 6733],
and the namespace reserved for vendor-specific extensions is large
enough to avoid exhaustion.
8. Security Considerations
This document provides guidelines and considerations for extending
Diameter and Diameter applications. Although such an extension may
be related to a security functionality, the document does not
explicitly give additional guidance on enhancing Diameter with
respect to security. However, as a general guideline, it is
recommended that any Diameter extension SHOULD NOT break the security
concept given in [RFC 6733]. In particular, it is reiterated here
that any command defined or reused in a new Diameter application
SHOULD be secured by using TLS [RFC 5246] or DTLS/SCTP [RFC 6083] and
MUST NOT be used without one of the following: TLS, DTLS, or IPsec
[RFC 4301]. When defining a new Diameter extension, any possible
impact of the existing security principles described in [RFC 6733]
MUST be carefully appraised and documented in the Diameter
application specification.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2119>.
[RFC 6733] Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
"Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733, October 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6733>.
9.2. Informative References
[Q.3303.3] International Telecommunications Union, "Resource control
protocol No. 3: Protocols at the Rw interface between the
policy decision physical entity (PD-PE) and a policy
enforcement physical entity (PE-PE): Diameter profile
version 3", ITU-T Recommendation Q.3303.3, August 2008.
Morand, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 25
RFC 7423 Diameter Applications Design Guidelines November 2014
[RFC 2409] Harkins, D. and D. Carrel, "The Internet Key Exchange
(IKE)", RFC 2409, November 1998,
<http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/info/RFC 2409>.
[RFC 3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J.
Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3588>.
[RFC 4005] Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D., and D. Mitton,
"Diameter Network Access Server Application", RFC 4005,
August 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4005>.
[RFC 4072] Eronen, P., Hiller, T., and G. Zorn, "Diameter Extensible
Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application", RFC 4072,
August 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4072>.
[RFC 4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4301>.
[RFC 4740] Garcia-Martin, M., Belinchon, M., Pallares-Lopez, M.,
Canales-Valenzuela, C., and K. Tammi, "Diameter Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) Application", RFC 4740, November
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4740>.
[RFC 5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5226>.
[RFC 5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5246>.
[RFC 5447] Korhonen, J., Bournelle, J., Tschofenig, H., Perkins, C.,
and K. Chowdhury, "Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for
Network Access Server to Diameter Server Interaction", RFC
5447, February 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5447>.
[RFC 5777] Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., Arumaithurai, M., Jones, M.,
and A. Lior, "Traffic Classification and Quality of
Service (QoS) Attributes for Diameter", RFC 5777, February
2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5777>.
[RFC 6083] Tuexen, M., Seggelmann, R., and E. Rescorla, "Datagram
Transport Layer Security (DTLS) for Stream Control
Transmission Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 6083, January 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6083>.
Morand, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 26
RFC 7423 Diameter Applications Design Guidelines November 2014
[RFC 6735] Carlberg, K. and T. Taylor, "Diameter Priority Attribute-
Value Pairs", RFC 6735, October 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6735>.
[RFC 7075] Tsou, T., Hao, R., and T. Taylor, "Realm-Based Redirection
In Diameter", RFC 7075, November 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7075>.
[RFC 7155] Zorn, G., "Diameter Network Access Server Application",
RFC 7155, April 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7155>.
[RFC 7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T.
Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2
(IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, October 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7296>.
[TS29.228] 3rd Generation Partnership Project, "Technical
Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; IP
Multimedia (IM) Subsystem Cx and Dx Interfaces; Signalling
flows and message contents", 3GPP TS 29.228, September
2014, <http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/29228.htm>.
[TS29.229] 3rd Generation Partnership Project, "Technical
Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; Cx and Dx
interfaces based on the Diameter protocol; Protocol
details", 3GPP TS 29.229, September 2014,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/29229.htm>.
[TS29.328] 3rd Generation Partnership Project, "Technical
Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; IP
Multimedia (IM) Subsystem Sh interface; Signalling flows
and message contents", 3GPP TS 29.328, September 2014,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/29328.htm>.
[TS29.329] 3rd Generation Partnership Project, "Technical
Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; Sh
Interface based on the Diameter protocol; Protocol
details", 3GPP TS 29.329, September 2014,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/29329.htm>.
Morand, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 27
RFC 7423 Diameter Applications Design Guidelines November 2014
Contributors
The content of this document was influenced by a design team created
to revisit the Diameter extensibility rules. The team was formed in
February 2008 and finished its work in June 2008. In addition to
those individuals listed in the Authors' Addresses section, the
design team members were:
o Avi Lior
o Glen Zorn
o Jari Arkko
o Jouni Korhonen
o Mark Jones
o Tolga Asveren
o Glenn McGregor
o Dave Frascone
We would like to thank Tolga Asveren, Glenn McGregor, and John
Loughney for their contributions as coauthors to earlier versions of
this document.
Acknowledgments
We greatly appreciate the insight provided by Diameter implementors
who have highlighted the issues and concerns being addressed by this
document. The authors would also like to thank Jean Mahoney, Ben
Campbell, Sebastien Decugis, and Benoit Claise for their invaluable,
detailed reviews and comments on this document.
Morand, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 28
RFC 7423 Diameter Applications Design Guidelines November 2014
Authors' Addresses
Lionel Morand (editor)
Orange Labs
38/40 rue du General Leclerc
Issy-Les-Moulineaux Cedex 9 92794
France
Phone: +33145296257
EMail: lionel.morand@orange.com
Victor Fajardo
Fluke Networks
EMail: vf0213@gmail.com
Hannes Tschofenig
Hall in Tirol 6060
Austria
EMail: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net
URI: http://www.tschofenig.priv.at
Morand, et al. Best Current Practice PAGE 29
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 67829 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Saturday, November 15th, 2014
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
