Updated IANA Considerations for Diameter Command Code Allocations
draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cmd-iana-01

dime                                                        D. Romascanu
Internet-Draft                                                     Avaya
Updates: rfc3588                                           H. Tschofenig
(if approved)                                     Nokia Siemens Networks
Intended status: Standards Track                           July 13, 2009
Expires: January 14, 2010

   Updated IANA Considerations for Diameter Command Code Allocations
                draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cmd-iana-01.txt

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 14, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.

Romascanu & Tschofenig  Expires January 14, 2010                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft   Diameter Command Code Allocation Policy       July 2009

Abstract

   The Diameter Base specification, described in RFC 3588, provides a
   number of ways to extend Diameter, with new Diameter commands, i.e.
   messages used by Diameter applications, and applications as the most
   extensive enhancements.  RFC 3588 illustrates the conditions that
   lead to the need to define a new Diameter application or a new
   command code.  Depending on the scope of the Diameter extension IETF
   actions are necessary.  Although defining new Diameter applications
   does not require IETF consensus, defining new Diameter commands
   requires IETF consensus per RFC 3588.  This has lead to questionable
   design decisions by other Standards Development Organizations which
   chose to define new applications on existing commands rather than
   asking for assignment of new command codes for the pure purpose of
   avoiding bringing their specifications to the IETF.  In some cases
   interoperability problems were causes as an effect of the poor design
   caused by overloading existing commands.

   This document aligns the extensibility rules of Diameter application
   with the Diameter commands offering ways to delegate work on Diameter
   to other SDOs to extend Diameter in a way that does not lead to poor
   design choices.

Romascanu & Tschofenig  Expires January 14, 2010                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft   Diameter Command Code Allocation Policy       July 2009

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Conventions used in this document  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     6.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     6.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Romascanu & Tschofenig  Expires January 14, 2010                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft   Diameter Command Code Allocation Policy       July 2009

1.  Introduction

   The Diameter Base specification, described in RFC 3588 [RFC3588],
   provides a number of ways to extend Diameter, with new Diameter
   commands, i.e. messages used by Diameter applications, and
   applications as the most extensive enhancements.  RFC3588 illustrates
   the conditions, which require the definition of a new Diameter
   application or a new command.  Depending on the scope of the Diameter
   extension IETF actions are necessary.  Although defining new Diameter
   applications does not require IETF consensus, defining new Diameter
   commands requires IETF consensus per RFC 3588.  This has lead to
   questionable design decisions by other Standards Development
   Organizations which chose to define new applications on existing
   commands rather than asking for assignment of new command codes for
   the pure purpose of avoiding bringing their specifications to the
   IETF.  In some cases interoperability problems were causes as an
   effect of the poor design caused by overloading existing commands.

   This document aligns the extensibility rules for Diameter command
   codes with those defined for Diameter application identifiers and
   offers a consistent way to delegate work on Diameter to other SDOs to
   extend Diameter in a way that does not lead to poor design choices.

   This is achieved by splitting the command code space into ranges and
   providing different allocation policies to them: the first range is
   reserved for RADIUS backward compatibility, allocation of a command
   code in the second number range requires IETF review, the third range
   is utilized by vendor-specific command codes, and finally the last
   range is for experimental commands.  Section 4 provides more details
   about the command code number ranges and the different allocation
   policies are described in [RFC5226].

   A revision of RFC 3588 is currently in development in the IETF DIME
   WG [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] and when approved will obsolete RFC
   3588 as well as this document.  This document has as a goal providing
   in advance the change in the command codes allocation policy, so that
   interoperability problems as the ones described above are avoided as
   soon as possible.

Romascanu & Tschofenig  Expires January 14, 2010                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft   Diameter Command Code Allocation Policy       July 2009

2.  Conventions used in this document

   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 [RFC2119].

Romascanu & Tschofenig  Expires January 14, 2010                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft   Diameter Command Code Allocation Policy       July 2009

3.  Security Considerations

   This document modifies the IANA allocation of Diameter Command Codes
   in relationship to RFC 3588.  This process change itself does not
   raise security concerns, but the command codes space is split into a
   standards commands space and a vendor-specific command codes space,
   the later being allocated on a First Come, First Served basis by IANA
   at the request of vendors or other standards organizations.  Whenever
   work gets delegated to organizations outside the IETF there is always
   the chance that fewer security reviews are conducted and hence the
   quality of the resulting protocol document is weaker compared to the
   rather extensive reviews performed in the IETF.  The members of the
   DIME working group are aware of the tradeoff between better
   specification quality and the desire to offload work (e.g., to reduce
   the workload in the IETF) to other organizations.  Other
   organizations are therefore made responsible for the quality of the
   specifications they produce.

Romascanu & Tschofenig  Expires January 14, 2010                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft   Diameter Command Code Allocation Policy       July 2009

4.  IANA Considerations

   This section describes changes to the IANA consideration sections
   outlined in RFC 3588 regarding the allocation of Command Codes by
   IANA.

   The Command Code namespace is used to identify Diameter commands.
   The values 0-255 (0x00-0xff) are reserved for RADIUS backward
   compatibility, and are defined as "RADIUS Packet Type Codes" in
   [RADTYPE].  Values 256 - 8,388,607 (0x100 to 0x7fffff) are for
   permanent, standard commands, allocated by IETF Review [RFC5226].
   [RFC3588] defines the Command Codes 257, 258, 271, 274-275, 280 and
   282.  See Section 3.1 in [RFC3588] for the assignment of the
   namespace in this specification.

   The values 8,388,608 - 16,777,213 (0x800000 - 0xfffffd) are reserved
   for vendor-specific command codes, to be allocated on a First Come,
   First Served basis by IANA [RFC5226].  The request to IANA for a
   Vendor-Specific Command Code SHOULD include a reference to a publicly
   available specification which documents the command in sufficient
   detail to aid in interoperability between independent
   implementations.  If the specification cannot be made publicly
   available, the request for a vendor-specific command code MUST
   include the contact information of persons and/or entities
   responsible for authoring and maintaining the command.

   The values 16,777,214 and 16,777,215 (hexadecimal values 0xfffffe -
   0xffffff) are reserved for experimental commands.  As these codes are
   only for experimental and testing purposes, no guarantee is made for
   interoperability between Diameter peers using experimental commands,
   as outlined in [RFC3692].

Romascanu & Tschofenig  Expires January 14, 2010                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft   Diameter Command Code Allocation Policy       July 2009

5.  Acknowledgements

   The content of this document is the result of the work in the IETF
   Diameter Maintenance and Extensions (dime) working group.  We would
   therefore like to thank all the working group members who were
   involved in that discussion.  While it appears to be a fairly small
   change in the allocation policy the effect on implementations is
   rather dramatic.

   We would like to thank Mark Jones for his review comments.

Romascanu & Tschofenig  Expires January 14, 2010                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft   Diameter Command Code Allocation Policy       July 2009

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3588]  Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J.
              Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003.

   [RFC3692]  Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
              Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

6.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]
              Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
              "Diameter Base Protocol", draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-18
              (work in progress), July 2009.

   [RADTYPE]  "IANA, RADIUS Types,
              http://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types".

Romascanu & Tschofenig  Expires January 14, 2010                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft   Diameter Command Code Allocation Policy       July 2009

Authors' Addresses

   Dan Romascanu
   Avaya
   Industrial Park Atidim, Bldg#3
   Tel Aviv  61581
   Israel

   Phone: +972-3-645-8414
   Email: dromasca@avaya.com

   Hannes Tschofenig
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   Linnoitustie 6
   Espoo  02600
   Finland

   Phone: +358 (50) 4871445
   Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net
   URI:   http://www.tschofenig.priv.at

Romascanu & Tschofenig  Expires January 14, 2010               [Page 10]