Subject: RE: [AAA-WG]: Edits to Diameter 11 to resolve vendor-specific command code issue

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 18:40:28 +0300

Hello,

Vendor-specific extensions to Diameter are not meant to modify a standard.
The intention is that vendor-specific extensions use and support fully
IETF-standard Diameter Base Protocol. The vendor-specific extensions do not
modify anything that is defined in Diameter Base Protocol standard.

The current Base Protocol draft specifies a standard way to make the extensions.
It also defines means that ensure that the communicating entities know what
extensions, if any, are supported at a given time.

As I have understand it, the requirement for the extensibility is also
defined in RFC 2989, Criteria for Evaluating AAA Protocols for Network Access.

I'm a bit afraid that if it is not allowed to standardize how to make
vendor-specific extensions, the vendors will make the extensions in
ad-hoc ways -- causing interoperability problems galore.

Best Regards,
Mikko

---

From: Johan Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 18:20:30 +0000

My assessment of the situation is identical to Mikko's. I would find it 
highly enlightening if someone were to point out how the current drafts 
allow an extension that interacts with the IETF Diameter protocol. Until 
this is done I am of the opinion that we are chasing a problem that does 
not exist.

*Unless* what Randy really means is that the vendor would try to pass 
the extension itself off as Diameter. An implementation that understands 
a private vendor-specific application but behaves according to all 
relevant IETF Diameter documents is and should be a conforming Diameter 
implementation in my book.

j