Technical Summary
This document describes a mechanism to enable specific Diameter
proxies to remain in the path of all message exchanges constituting a
Diameter session.
Working Group Summary
The document is an individual submission on the RFC Editor Stream.
Document Quality
Personnel
Dan Romascanu is the Responsible Area Director
IESG Note
The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done in
the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions (DIME) WG. The DIME WG discussed
a predecessor of this document. There was no consensus in the WG that
the problems addressed by the document are a real concern in existing
Diameter deployments, and there was no consensus that the solutions meet
the architectural principles of the Diameter protocol. As a result the
DIME WG decided not to undertake this work. This relationship does not
prevent publishing, but the IESG strongly encourages three changes if the
RFC Editor chooses to proceed with the publication of this document.
First, the IESG has checked with several other SDOs, and none of them
indicate that this document is needed as a reference for them to progress
their own work. As such, if the RFC Editor chooses to proceed with the
publication of this document, the IESG strongly encourages the removal
of the following text from the Abstract:
This document is being published to provide the basis for a
standardized solution to a problem raised by some architectures
(e.g., WLAN 3GPP IP access, 3GPP TS23.234) that use Diameter.
The intended use will be as a reference within the non-IETF
specification of a Diameter application that meets the needs of
these architectures.
Second, the document should not claim to represent any aspect of IETF
consensus. Therefore, if the RFC Editor chooses to proceed with the
publication of this document, the IESG strongly encourages the removal
of the following text from the second paragraph of the Introduction:
The IETF does not endorse this specification because of its impact on
Diameter session survivability, but do not object to its publication
for use in specialized situations where the loss of robustness is
acceptable.
Third, a discussion of the DIME WG discussion should be added to the
body of the document or as an IESG note. If an IESG Note is used,
please include following text:
Techniques similar to those discussed in this document were discussed
in the IETF DIME Working Group. The group had no consensus that the
problems addressed by such work are a real concern in Diameter
deployments. Furthermore, there was no consensus that the proposed
solutions are in line with the architectural principles of the Diameter
protocol. As a result the working group decided not to undertake the
work. There has also not been a formal request for this functionality
from any standards body. This RFC represents a continuation of the
abandoned work. Readers of this specification should be aware that the
IETF has not reviewed this specification and cannot say anything about
suitability for a particular purpose or compatibility with the Diameter
architecture and other extensions.