Diameter Maintanence and V. Fajardo, Ed.
Extensions (DIME)
Internet-Draft H. Tschofenig
Intended status: Informational Nokia Siemens Networks
Expires: September 8, 2010 L. Morand
Orange Labs
March 7, 2010
Diameter Applications Design Guidelines
draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide-11.txt
Abstract
The Diameter Base protocol provides updated rules on how to extend
Diameter by modifying and/or deriving from existing applications or
creating entirely new applications. This is a companion document to
the Diameter Base protocol that further explains and clarifies these
rules. It is meant as a guidelines document and therefore it does
not add, remove or change existing rules.
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 September 8, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Fajardo, et al. Expires September 8, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines March 2010
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 BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Adding a new command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Deleting a Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Reusing Existing Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Adding AVPs to a Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. Deleting AVPs from a Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Reusing Existing AVPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Rules for new Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.1. Use of Application-Id in a Message . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.2. Application Specific Session State Machine . . . . . . . . 14
9. End-to-End Applications Capabilities Exchange . . . . . . . . 15
10. Diameter Accounting Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11. Generic Diameter Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
14. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
15. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Fajardo, et al. Expires September 8, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines March 2010
1. Introduction
The Diameter Base protocol document defines rules on how one would
extend Diameter (see Section 1.2 of [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]). In
the context of this document, extending Diameter means one of the
following:
1. A new functionality is being added to an existing Diameter
application without defining a new application.
2. A new Diameter application is being defined by extending an
existing application.
3. A completely new application is being defined that has nothing in
common with existing applications.
4. A new generic functionality is being defined that can be reused
across different applications.
All of these choices are design decisions that can done by any
combination of reusing existing or defining new commands, AVPs or AVP
values. Protocol designers do, however, not have total freedom when
making their design. A number of rules defined in
[I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] place constraints on when an extension
demands a new Diameter Application to be defined or a new Command
Code to be registered. The objective of this document is the
following:
o Clarify updated Diameter extensibility rules in the Diameter Base
Protocol.
o Clarify usage of certain Diameter functionalitiessi which are not
explicitly described in the Diameter Base specification.
o Discuss design choices and provide guidelines when defining
applications.
o Present tradeoffs of design choices.
Fajardo, et al. Expires September 8, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines March 2010
2. Terminology
This document reuses the terminology used in
[I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis].
Fajardo, et al. Expires September 8, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines March 2010
3. Overview
As it is currently interpreted and practiced, the Diameter Base
protocol is 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 completely 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 Section 8 and 9 of
[I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]). The remainder of this document also
treats a Diameter node as a single instance of a Diameter message
delivery layer and one or more Diameter applications using it.
Extending Diameter can mean the reuse of commands, AVPs and AVP
values in any combination for the purpose of inheriting the features
of an existing Diameter application. This section discusses the
rules on how such reuse can be done.
When reusing existing applications, the requirements of the new
applications are typically not completely unique and hence a lot can
be re-used from existing specifications. Therefore, there is a
greater likelihood of ambiguity on how much of the existing
application can be reused and what would be the implications for both
the new and existing application. To broadly categorize, the rules
for reusing existing applications can fall into two categories, as
listed below.
Minor Extension: This, for example, is the case when optional AVPs
are being defined. In general, this includes everything that is
not covered by the next category. The standardization effort will
be fairly small.
Major Extension: Such an extension requires the definition of a new
Diameter application. The rules outlined in Section 1.2 of
[I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] indicate when an extension requires a a
new Command Code to be registered and when new Diameter
applications have to be defined. Typically, these types of
extensions require a longer and more careful effort depending on
the degree of re-use. Therefore, the amount of time and effort to
complete the specification should also be considered by the
designer.
The subsequent sections provide discussions about the specific
Fajardo, et al. Expires September 8, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines March 2010
Diameter Base protocol rules.
Fajardo, et al. Expires September 8, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines March 2010
4. Adding a new command
Adding a new command is considered a major extension and requires a
new Diameter application to be defined. Adding a new command to an
application means either defining a completely new command or
importing an existing command from another application whereby the
new application inherits some or all of the functionality of the
application where the command came from. In the former case, the
decision to create an 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 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. Therefore, a case by case study of each
application requirement should be applied.
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
application independent from the existing applications? In this
case, both old and new application can work independent of, but
cooperating with each other.
o Can the existing application be reused without major extensions
that requires the definition of a new application, e.g. new
funtionality introduced by the creation of new optional AVPs.
o Care should be taken to avoid a liberal method of importing
existing commands that results in a monolithic and hard to manage
application which supports many different functionalities.
Fajardo, et al. Expires September 8, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines March 2010
5. Deleting a Command
Although this process is not typical, removing a command to an
application requires a new Diameter application to be defined. It is
unusual to delete an existing command from an application for the
sake of deleting it or the functionality it represents. This
normally indicates of a flawed design. An exception might be if the
intent of the deletion is to create a newer version of the same
application which is somehow simpler than the previous version.
Fajardo, et al. Expires September 8, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines March 2010
6. 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.
6.1. Adding AVPs to a Command
Based on the rules in [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis], AVPs that are added
to an existing command can be categorized into:
o Mandatory to understand AVPs. As defined in
[I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis], these are AVPs with the M-bit flag
set, which means that a Diameter node receiving are required to
understand not only their values but their semantics. Failure to
do so will cause an message handling error. This is regardless of
whether these AVPs are required or optional as specified by the
commands ABNF.
o Optional AVPs. [TBD]
The rules are strict in the case where the AVPs to be added are
mandatory. A mandatory AVP cannot be added to or deleted from an
existing command with defining a new Diameter application.
[I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] states that doing so would require the
definition of a new application. This falls into the "Major
Extensions" category. Despite the clarity of the rule, ambiguity
still arises when trying to decide whether a new AVP being added
should be mandatory to begin with. The follow are a few common
questions that application designers should contemplate when trying
to decide:
o Is it required for the receiving side to be able to process and
understand the AVP and its content (rather than just writing it's
content into to a file)?
o Do the AVPs change the state machine of the application ?
o Would the presence of the new AVPs (or the newly specified value
contained in an existing AVP) lead to a different number of
roundtrips, effectively changing the state machine of the
application?
Fajardo, et al. Expires September 8, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines March 2010
o Would the AVP be used to differentiate between old and new
versions of the same application whereby the two versions are not
backward compatible?
o Will it have duality in meaning, i.e., be used to carry
application related information as well as be used to indicate
that the message is for a new application?
When one of the above questions can be answered with 'yes' then the
M-bit has to be set. If application designers are contemplating on
the use of optional AVPs instead, then the following are some of the
pitfalls that should be avoided:
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 An optional AVPs with dual purpose, i.e. to carry applications
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 present in the command. This essentially circumventing the
ABNF and is equivalent to adding a mandatory AVPs to the command.
These practices generally result in interoperability issues and
should be avoided as much as possible.
6.2. Deleting AVPs from a Command
When deleting an AVP from a Command the following cases need to be
differentiated:
o An AVP that is indicated as {} in the ABNF in the Command (with or
without the M-bit set). In this case the new Command Code and
subsequently a new Diameter application has to be specified.
o An AVP that is indicated as [] in the ABNF in the Command (with
the M-bit set). No new Command Code has to be specified but the
definition of a new Diameter application is required.
Fajardo, et al. Expires September 8, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines March 2010
o An AVP that is indicated as [] in the ABNF in the Command (without
the M-bit set). In this case the AVP can be deleted without
consequences.
If possible application designers should attempt the reuse the
Command ABNF without modification and simply ignore (but not delete)
any optional AVP that will not be used. This is to maintain
compatibility with existing applications that will not know about the
new functionality as well as maintain the integrity of existing
dictionaries.
Fajardo, et al. Expires September 8, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines March 2010
7. Reusing Existing AVPs
This section discusses rules in adding, deleting or modifying the
specified values of an AVP.
When reusing AVPs in a new application, the AVP flag setting, such as
the mandatory flag ('M'-bit), has to be re-evaluated for a new
Diameter application and, if necessary, even for every Command within
the application. In general, for AVPs defined outside of the base
protocol, its mandatory characteristics are tied to its role within
an application and Command.
Fajardo, et al. Expires September 8, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines March 2010
8. Rules for new Applications
The general theme of Diameter extensibility is to reuse commands,
AVPs and AVP values as much as possible. However, some of the
extensibility rules described in the previous section also apply to
scenarios where a designer is trying to define a completely new
Diameter application.
This section discusses the case where new applications have
requirements that cannot be filled 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, i.e. Cx/Dx
([TS29.228] and [TS29.229]), Sh ([TS29.328] and [TS29.329]) etc.
Application designers should also follow the theme of Diameter
extensibility which in this case means 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 10 should
also be considered. Though some decisions may be clear, designers
should also consider certain aspects of defining a new application.
Some of these aspects are described in following sections.
8.1. Use of Application-Id in a Message
When designing new applications, designers should specify that the
application ID carried in all session level messages must be the
application ID of the application using those messages. This
includes the session level messages defined in base protocol, i.e.,
RAR/RAA, STR/STA, ASR/ASA and possibly ACR/ACA in the coupled
accounting model, see Section 10. Existing specifications may not
adhere to this rule for historical or other reasons. However, this
scheme should be followed to avoid possible routing problems for
these messages.
In general, when a new application has been allocated with a new
application id and it also reuses existing commands with or without
modifications (Sec 4.1), it must 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 designs using
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
Fajardo, et al. Expires September 8, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines March 2010
routing or delivery of messages. In general, the Vendor-Id AVP is an
informational AVP only and kept for backward compatibility reasons.
8.2. Application Specific Session State Machine
Section 8 of [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] provides session state
machines for authentication, authorization and accounting (AAA)
services. When a new application is being defined that cannot
clearly be categorized into any of these services it is recommended
that the application itself define its own session state machine.
The existing session state machines defined by
[I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] is not intended for general use beyond AAA
services, therefore any behavior not covered by that category would
not fit well. Support for server initiated request is a clear
example where an application specific session state machine would be
needed, for example, the Rw interface for ITU-T push model.
Fajardo, et al. Expires September 8, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines March 2010
9. End-to-End Applications Capabilities Exchange
It is also possible that applications can use optional AVPs to
exchange application specific capabilities and features. These AVPs
are exchanged on an end-to-end basis. Examples of this can be found
in [I-D.ietf-dime-mip6-integrated] and
[I-D.ietf-dime-qos-attributes].
The end-to-end capabilities AVPs can aid in the following cases:
o Formalizing the way new functionality is added to existing
applications by announcing support for it.
o Applications that do not understand these AVP can discard it upon
receipt. In such case, senders of the AVP can also safely assume
the receiving end-point does not support any functionality carried
by the AVP if it is not present in subsequent responses.
o Useful in cases where deployment choices are offered and the
generic design can be made available for a number of applications.
Note that this list is not meant to be comprehensive.
Fajardo, et al. Expires September 8, 2010 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines March 2010
10. Diameter Accounting Support
Accounting can be treated as an auxiliary application which is used
in support of other applications. In most cases, accounting support
is required when defining new applications. This document provides
two(2) 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 during 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 generally end up in a central
accounting server. A split accounting model is a good design
choice when:
* The application itself will not define its own unique
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
somehow differentiate received accounting messages. Since the
received accounting messages can be for any application and/or
service, the accounting server has to be have a method to uniquely
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 records itself. But in general, there
is no clean and generic scheme for sorting these messages.
Therefore, the use of this model is recommended only when all
received accounting messages can be clearly identified and sorted.
For most cases, the use of Coupled Accounting Model is
recommended.
Fajardo, et al. Expires September 8, 2010 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines March 2010
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 any 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 will not provide an
accounting server that supports Diameter.
* The system architecture or deployment requires that the
accounting service for the specific application should be
handled by the application itself.
* The application server is provisioned to use a different
protocol to access the accounting server; e.g., via LDAP, SOAP
etc. This includes attempting to support older accounting
systems that are not Diameter aware.
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
into account. Though it is not recommended, examples of other
methods might be defining a new set of commands to carry application
specific accounting records.
Fajardo, et al. Expires September 8, 2010 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines March 2010
11. 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 auditing and redundancy
(see [I-D.calhoun-diameter-res-mgmt]), improvements in duplicate
detection scheme (see [I-D.asveren-dime-dupcons]), and piggybacking
of QoS attributes (see [I-D.ietf-dime-qos-attributes]).
Since generic extensions can cover many aspects of Diameter and
Diameter applications, it is not possible to enumerate all the
probable scenarios in this document. However, some of the most
common considerations are as follows:
o Backward compatibility: Dealing with existing applications that do
not understand the new extension. Designers also have to make
sure that new extensions do not break expected message delivery
layer behavior.
o Forward compatibility: Making sure that the design will not
introduce undue restrictions for future applications. Future
applications attempting to support this feature should not have to
go through great lengths to implement any new extensions.
o Tradeoffs 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, the drawback is that the timing of sending extension data
will be tied to when the application would be sending 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 tradeoff 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
tradeoffs based on the requirements of the extension.
In practice, it is often the case that the generic extensions use
optional AVPs because it's simple and not intrusive to the
application that would carry it. 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
Fajardo, et al. Expires September 8, 2010 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines March 2010
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 is
should be sufficient to specify such a use case and perhaps provide
specific examples of applications using them.
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 IMS
Cx / Dx interfaces ([TS29.228] and [TS29.229]).
Fajardo, et al. Expires September 8, 2010 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines March 2010
12. IANA Considerations
This document does not require actions by IANA.
Fajardo, et al. Expires September 8, 2010 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines March 2010
13. Security Considerations
This document does provides guidelines and considerations for
extending Diameter and Diameter applications. It does not define nor
address security related protocols or schemes.
Fajardo, et al. Expires September 8, 2010 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines March 2010
14. Contributors
The content of this document was influenced by a design team created
to revisit the Diameter extensibility rules. The team consisting of
the members listed below was formed in February 2008 and finished its
work in June 2008.
o Avi Lior
o Glen Zorn
o Jari Arkko
o Lionel Morand
o Mark Jones
o Victor Fajardo
o Tolga Asveren
o Jouni Korhonen
o Glenn McGregor
o Hannes Tschofenig
o Dave Frascone
We would like to thank Tolga Asveren, Glenn McGregor, and John
Loughney for their contributions as co-authors to earlier versions of
this document.
Fajardo, et al. Expires September 8, 2010 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines March 2010
15. Acknowledgments
We greatly appreciate the insight provided by Diameter implementers
who have highlighted the issues and concerns being addressed by this
document.
Fajardo, et al. Expires September 8, 2010 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines March 2010
16. References
16.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-dime-diameter-qos]
Sun, D., McCann, P., Tschofenig, H., ZOU), T., Doria, A.,
and G. Zorn, "Diameter Quality of Service Application",
draft-ietf-dime-diameter-qos-14 (work in progress),
February 2010.
[I-D.ietf-dime-mip6-integrated]
Korhonen, J., Bournelle, J., Tschofenig, H., Perkins, C.,
and K. Chowdhury, "Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for
Network Access Server to Diameter Server Interaction",
draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated-12 (work in progress),
January 2009.
[I-D.ietf-dime-mip6-split]
Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., Bournelle, J., Giaretta, G.,
and M. Nakhjiri, "Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for Home
Agent to Diameter Server Interaction",
draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-17 (work in progress),
April 2009.
[I-D.ietf-dime-qos-attributes]
Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., Arumaithurai, M., Jones, M.,
and A. Lior, "Traffic Classification and Quality of
Service Attributes for Diameter",
draft-ietf-dime-qos-attributes-15 (work in progress),
December 2009.
[I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]
Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
"Diameter Base Protocol", draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-19
(work in progress), September 2009.
[RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J.
Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003.
[RFC4006] Hakala, H., Mattila, L., Koskinen, J-P., Stura, M., and J.
Loughney, "Diameter Credit-Control Application", RFC 4006,
August 2005.
[TS29.228]
3GPP, "IMS Cx and Dx interfaces : signalling flows and
message contents", 3GPP TS 29.228 Version 7.0.0 2006.
[TS29.229]
Fajardo, et al. Expires September 8, 2010 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines March 2010
3GPP, "IMS Cx and Dx interfaces based on the Diameter
protocol; Protocol details", 3GPP TS 29.229 Version
7.0.0 2006.
[TS29.328]
3GPP, "IMS Sh interface : signalling flows and message
content", 3GPP TS 29.328 Version 6.8.0 2005.
[TS29.329]
3GPP, "IMS Sh interface based on the Diameter protocol;
Protocol details", 3GPP TS 29.329 Version 6.6.0 2005.
16.2. Informative References
[I-D.asveren-dime-dupcons]
Asveren, T., "Diameter Duplicate Detection Cons.",
draft-asveren-dime-dupcons-00 (work in progress),
August 2006.
[I-D.calhoun-diameter-res-mgmt]
Calhoun, P., "Diameter Resource Management Extensions",
draft-calhoun-diameter-res-mgmt-08.txt (work in progress),
March 2001.
Fajardo, et al. Expires September 8, 2010 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Diameter Applications Design Guidelines March 2010
Authors' Addresses
Victor Fajardo (editor)
Email: vf0213@gmail.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
Lionel Morand
Orange Labs
Phone: +33 1 4529 6257
Email: lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com
Fajardo, et al. Expires September 8, 2010 [Page 26]