Updated IANA Considerations for Diameter Command Code Allocations
draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cmd-iana-01
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2009-10-15
|
01 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2009-10-14
|
01 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2009-10-14
|
01 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2009-10-14
|
01 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2009-10-13
|
01 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2009-10-12
|
01 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2009-10-12
|
01 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2009-10-12
|
01 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2009-10-12
|
01 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2009-10-12
|
01 | Ron Bonica | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed by Ron Bonica |
2009-10-09
|
01 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-10-08 |
2009-10-08
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
2009-10-08
|
01 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
2009-10-08
|
01 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2009-10-07
|
01 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Abstain by Adrian Farrel |
2009-10-07
|
01 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel |
2009-10-07
|
01 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2009-10-07
|
01 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2009-10-07
|
01 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot comment] ABSTRACT: > The Diameter Base specification, described in RFC 3588, provides a > number of ways to extend Diameter, with … [Ballot comment] ABSTRACT: > The Diameter Base specification, described in RFC 3588, provides a > number of ways to extend Diameter, with new Diameter commands, i.e. ... > 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. The first paragraph is unusual for an abstract (and it's repeated in the introduction), and the second paragraph needs to say that this updates RFC3588. Section 4., paragraph 1: > This section describes changes to the IANA consideration sections > outlined in RFC 3588 regarding the allocation of Command Codes by > IANA. And I'm guessing you want to instruct IANA to start applying these as soon as this document is approved? |
2009-10-07
|
01 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2009-10-06
|
01 | Tim Polk | [Ballot comment] Like Pasi, I would favor rewording the Security Considerations section. Carl Wallace had some editorial suggestions in his secdir review: - The first … [Ballot comment] Like Pasi, I would favor rewording the Security Considerations section. Carl Wallace had some editorial suggestions in his secdir review: - The first sentence of the abstract (and introduction) is difficult to parse. - In the Introduction, change "the conditions, which" to "the conditions that" and change "were causes" to "were caused". - The document states that it "aligns the extensibility rules for Diameter command codes with those defined for Diameter application identifiers". Since the values are not aligned and there's no mention of "extensibility rules" elsewhere in this document nor in 3588, I suggest something like: "This document changes the allocation rules for Diameter command codes to support usage of vendor specific command codes, similar to the allocation of vendor specific application identifiers." |
2009-10-06
|
01 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2009-10-06
|
01 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
2009-10-06
|
01 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] In the Gen-ART Review by Scott Brim on 2009-09-21: Not a big issue but: if you do revise it, consider putting in … [Ballot comment] In the Gen-ART Review by Scott Brim on 2009-09-21: Not a big issue but: if you do revise it, consider putting in a little more about the motivation. Without naming names, what were the "questionable design decisions" and why were they an issue? |
2009-10-06
|
01 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2009-10-06
|
01 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms |
2009-10-05
|
01 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot comment] Currently, Section 3 seems to say that IETF produces better quality specifications than other organizations, and others are more likely to screw up … [Ballot comment] Currently, Section 3 seems to say that IETF produces better quality specifications than other organizations, and others are more likely to screw up security. I find this a bit negative and arrogant -- when defining a new Diameter application for a system developed in some other organization FOO, I think it's much more likely that FOO understands their system, and its security requirements, better than IETF does. |
2009-10-05
|
01 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
2009-10-02
|
01 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov |
2009-09-30
|
01 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2009-09-30
|
01 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica |
2009-09-30
|
01 | Ron Bonica | Ballot has been issued by Ron Bonica |
2009-09-30
|
01 | Ron Bonica | Created "Approve" ballot |
2009-09-24
|
01 | Ron Bonica | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Ron Bonica |
2009-09-24
|
01 | Ron Bonica | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-10-08 by Ron Bonica |
2009-09-22
|
01 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2009-09-18
|
01 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Carl Wallace. |
2009-09-17
|
01 | Amanda Baber | IANA comments: QUESTION: Would it be more appropriate to make the procedure for 8388608-16777213 "Specification Required," with the proviso that the specification need not be … IANA comments: QUESTION: Would it be more appropriate to make the procedure for 8388608-16777213 "Specification Required," with the proviso that the specification need not be publically available? IANA will have to ask an expert whether any given spec "documents the command in sufficient detail to aid in interoperability between independent implementations." Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following changes in the "Command Codes" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/aaa-parameters/aaa-parameters.xhtml sub-registry "Command Codes" OLD: Reference: [RFC3588] Registration Procedures: IETF Consensus ... Code Value Name Reference ---------- ---- --------- 16777214 Experimental code [RFC3588] 16777215 Experimental code [RFC3588] NEW: Reference: [RFC-dime-diameter-cmd-iana-01] Range Registration Procedure Notes ----------- ----------------------- --------- 256-8388607 IETF Review 8388608- 16777213 First Come First Served Vendor-Specific; Specification Recommended ... Code Value Name Reference ---------- ---- --------- 16777214 Experimental code [RFC3588][RFC-dime-diameter-cmd-iana-01] 16777215 Experimental code [RFC3588][RFC-dime-diameter-cmd-iana-01] We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this document. |
2009-09-10
|
01 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Carl Wallace |
2009-09-10
|
01 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Carl Wallace |
2009-09-08
|
01 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2009-09-08
|
01 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2009-09-08
|
01 | Ron Bonica | State Changes to Last Call Requested from Waiting for Writeup by Ron Bonica |
2009-09-08
|
01 | Ron Bonica | Last Call was requested by Ron Bonica |
2009-09-08
|
01 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2009-09-08
|
01 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2009-09-08
|
01 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2009-08-15
|
01 | Ron Bonica | State Changes to Waiting for Writeup from Publication Requested by Ron Bonica |
2009-08-06
|
01 | Ron Bonica | Responsible AD has been changed to Ron Bonica from Dan Romascanu |
2009-07-24
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he … (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Victor Fajardo (vfajardo@research.telcordia.com). Yes, this version is ready for publication. I have reviewed this document. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? This content of this document has been subject of a design team and is part of the Diameter extensibility story. There has been sufficient review and discussion about this topic in DIME. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization, or XML? No further review is required. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. There are no concerns with this document. (1.e) 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 solid agreement behind this document. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) Nobody has threatened appeal or extreme discontent with this document. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? If the document does not already indicate its intended status at the top of the first page, please indicate the intended status here. No nits have been found. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? 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 strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The document has references split into normative and informative references. There is no problem with the normative references. No DOWNREF is necessary. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation? Yes, the IANA consideration section is in-sync with the body of the document. This document changes the allocation policy of an existing registry established with RFC 3588. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? This document does not contain parts that are written in a formal language. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary 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. Working Group Summary This document is the product of the DIME working group. The extensibility rules of Diameter have been investigated by a design team and the alignment of policy for extending Diameter applications and Diameter commands has been agreed. Document Quality This document focuses on the description of the allocation policy change in the IANA consideration section and has been discussed for some time. Personnel Victor Fajardo is the document shepherd for this document. Dan Romascanu is the responsible AD. |
2009-07-24
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested |
2009-07-24
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'Victor Fajardo (vfajardo@research.telcordia.com) is the document shepherd.' added by Cindy Morgan |
2009-07-13
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cmd-iana-01.txt |
2009-06-03
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cmd-iana-00.txt |