Middlebox Communications (MIDCOM) Protocol Evaluation
RFC 4097

Document Type RFC - Informational (June 2005; No errata)
Last updated 2015-10-14
Stream IETF
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state (None)
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state RFC 4097 (Informational)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD Scott Bradner
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                     M. Barnes, Ed.
Request for Comments: 4097                               Nortel Networks
Category: Informational                                        June 2005

        Middlebox Communications (MIDCOM) Protocol Evaluation

Status of This Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

   This document provides an evaluation of the applicability of SNMP
   (Simple Network Management Protocol), RSIP (Realm Specific Internet
   Protocol), Megaco, Diameter, and COPS (Common Open Policy Service) as
   the MIDCOM (Middlebox Communications) protocol.  A summary of each of
   the proposed protocols against the MIDCOM requirements and the MIDCOM
   framework is provided.  Compliancy of each of the protocols against
   each requirement is detailed.  A conclusion summarizes how each of
   the protocols fares in the evaluation.

Table of Contents

   Overview..........................................................  2
   Conventions Used in This Document.................................  3
   1.  Protocol Proposals............................................  3
       1.1.  SNMP....................................................  3
       1.2.  RSIP....................................................  5
       1.3.  Megaco..................................................  7
       1.4.  Diameter................................................  8
       1.5.  COPS.................................................... 10
   2.  Item Level Compliance Evaluation.............................. 11
       2.1.  Protocol Machinery...................................... 11
       2.2.  Protocol Semantics...................................... 20
       2.3.  General Security Requirements........................... 27
   3.  Conclusions................................................... 29
   4.  Security Considerations....................................... 30
   5.  References.................................................... 31
       5.1.  Normative References.................................... 31
       5.2.  Informative References.................................. 33
   6.  Acknowledgements.............................................. 33

Barnes                       Informational                      [Page 1]
RFC 4097               MIDCOM Protocol Evaluation              June 2005

   Appendix A - SNMP Overview........................................ 34
   Appendix B - RSIP with Tunneling.................................. 35
   Appendix C - Megaco Modeling Approach............................. 37
   Appendix D - Diameter IPFilter Rule............................... 39
   Contributors ..................................................... 42

Overview

   This document provides an evaluation of the applicability of SNMP
   (Simple Network Management Protocol), RSIP (Realm Specific Internet
   Protocol), Megaco, Diameter and COPS (Common Open Policy Service) as
   the MIDCOM (Middlebox Communications) protocol.  This evaluation
   provides overviews of the protocols and general statements of
   applicability based upon the MIDCOM framework [2] and requirements
   [1] documents.

   The process for the protocol evaluation was fairly straightforward as
   individuals volunteered to provide an individual document evaluating
   a specific protocol.  Thus, some protocols that might be considered
   as reasonably applicable as the MIDCOM protocol are not evaluated in
   this document since there were no volunteers to champion the work.
   The individual protocol documents for which there were volunteers
   were submitted for discussion on the list with feedback being
   incorporated into an updated document.  The updated versions of these
   documents formed the basis for the content of this WG document.

   Section 1 contains a list of the proposed protocols submitted for the
   purposes of the protocol evaluation with some background information
   on the protocols and similarities and differences with regards to the
   applicability to the framework [2] provided.

   Section 2 provides the item level evaluation of the proposed
   protocols against the Requirements [1].

   Section 3 provides a summary of the evaluation.  A table containing a
   numerical breakdown for each of the protocols, with regards to its
   applicability to the requirements, for the following categories is
   provided: Fully met, Partially met through the use of extensions,
   Partially met through other changes to the protocol, or Failing to be
   met.  This summary is not meant to provide a conclusive statement of
   the suitability of the protocols, but rather to provide information
   to be considered as input into the overall protocol decision process.

   In order for this document to serve as a complete evaluation of the
Show full document text