Skip to main content

Updated IANA Considerations for Diameter Command Code Allocations
RFC 5719

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2018-12-20
01 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'The Diameter base specification, described in RFC 3588, provides a number of ways to extend …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to '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 led 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 an effect of the poor design caused by overloading existing commands.

This document aligns the extensibility rules of the 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. [STANDARDS-TRACK]')
2015-10-14
01 (System) Notify list changed from dime-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cmd-iana@ietf.org to (None)
2010-01-08
01 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza
2010-01-08
01 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'RFC 5719' added by Amy Vezza
2010-01-07
01 (System) RFC published
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