Subject: [AAA-WG]: Issue: Removal of vendor-specific Diameter command-codes

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 16:18:58 +0300

Hi all,

If I have understood Randy Bush correctly, the IESG strongly
objects to the inclusion of support for vendor-specific command-codes
in the Diameter Base Protocol.

The modifications needed to remove these are as follows:

1) removal of Vendor-ID from the Diameter Header.
2) removal vendor-specific command-codes from 5.3.6
3) vendor-specific Diameter command-codes from 6.11 
4) Discussion of vendor-specific Diameter command-codes in section 11.2.1

Below is the current text from Diameter 11 that discusses vendor-specific command-codes.

Again, the proposal is that all mention of vendor-specific command-codes 
would be removed.

Please comment on the list.

thanks,
John

============

3  Diameter Header

[text clipped]

   Vendor-ID
      In the event that the Command-Code field contains a vendor
      specific command, the four-octet Vendor-ID field contains the IANA
      assigned "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes"
      [ASSIGNNO] value. If the Command-Code field contains an IETF
      standard Command, the Vendor-ID field MUST be set to zero (0). Any
      vendor wishing to implement a vendor-specific Diameter command
      MUST use their own Vendor-ID along with their privately managed
      Command-Code address space, guaranteeing that they will not
      collide with any other vendor's vendor-specific command, nor with
      future IETF applications. All vendor-specific Diameter commands
      require Informational RFCs documenting the command unless for
      Private Use as described in Section 11.1.1.

-> (11.1.1 needs to be changed to 11.2.1)

=====

5.3.6  Supported-Vendor-Id AVP

   The Supported-Vendor-Id AVP (AVP Code 265) is of type Unsigned32 and
   contains the IANA "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes"
   [ASSIGNNO] value assigned to a vendor other than the device vendor.
   This is used in the CER and CEA messages in order to inform the peer
   that the sender supports a subset of the vendor-specific commands
   and/or AVPs defined by the vendor identified in this AVP.

=====

6.11  Vendor-Specific-Application-Id AVP

   The Vendor-Specific-Application-Id AVP (AVP Code 260) is of type
   Grouped and is used to advertise support of a vendor-specific
   Diameter Application. Exactly one of the Auth-Application-Id and
   Acct-Application-Id AVPs MAY be present.

   This AVP MUST also be present in all vendor-specific commands defined
   in the vendor-specific application.

   This AVP SHOULD be placed as close to the Diameter header as
   possible.

   AVP Format

      <Vendor-Specific-Application-Id> ::= < AVP Header: 260 >
                                        1* [ Vendor-Id ]
                                        0*1{ Auth-Application-Id }
                                        0*1{ Acct-Application-Id }

=====

11.2.1  Command Codes

   The Command Code namespace is used to identify Diameter commands. The
   values 0-255 are reserved for RADIUS backward compatibility, and are
   defined as "RADIUS Packet Type Codes" in [RADTYPE]. The remaining
   values are available via Standards Action [IANA].

   Vendor-Specific Command Codes, where the Vendor-Id field in the
   Diameter header is set to a non-zero value, are for Private Use.

---

From: Pete McCann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:42:07 -0500

Hi,

As I understand it 3GPP is currently planning to define several
3GPP-specific Diameter applications.  These include their Cx
interface, for SIP authentication/authorization, the Sh interface, for
SIP application authentication/authorization, and the Charging
application for IMS.  I believe they plan to make extensive use of
3GPP-specific Vendor/Organization codes in these applications, and to
proceed on these applications without standards action in the IETF.
Removing vendor-specific support from the Diameter base protocol would
be quite disruptive to these plans.

-Pete

---

From: Sakthidaran V <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 07:32:22 +0530

John ,

But , that is not MANDATORY in the existing draft (draft-10) .
Is it ?
I heard mentions of Sections  5.3.3 and 5.3.6 .
The references in Section 6.10  have been mentioned as 6.11 in your mail
I guess it is a typo .

6.10  Vendor-Specific-Application-Id AVP

   The Vendor-Specific-Application-Id AVP (AVP Code 260) is of type
   Grouped and is used to advertise support of a vendor-specific
   Diameter Application. Either the Auth-Application-Id or the Acct-
   Application-Id AVP MAY be present. Exactly one of the Auth-
   Application-Id and Acct-Application-Id AVPs MAY be present.

   AVP Format

Regds
Shakthi
[email-masked]

--

---

From: Sakthidaran V <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 07:35:14 +0530

OOPS ,

Pls ignore

I looked at Diameter-10 instead of Diameter-11 .

Sorry !!

But my point about it not being MANDATORY still holds right ?

Thank you for your time .

Regds
Shakthi
[email-masked]

--