Subject: [AAA-WG]: Diameter IETF Standard extensions vs. Vendor extensions

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:35:01 +0300

Hi all,

There seems to be some misunderstanding in the recent discussions
about the role of Diameter extensibility.  I believe there are
2 kinds of extensions:

(1) Public, IETF Standard extensions
(2) Private, vendor extensions

For (1) a standards track document is needed, in my opinion.

For (2) I think a good way forward would be an IANA registry,
with documentation needed, and a strong suggestion for an IETF
informational document.  The reason being is that we want
to keep track of how vendors are extending Diameter and
an Informational document would help the organization proposing
the vendor extension to ensure they are doing the right thing.

If my above analysis of the situation is correct, I can add explanatory
text to section 1.2 & chapter 11.

I would be happy to get AD acceptance on this, at least to be able
to bring this to the IESG.

thanks,
John

---

From: Johan Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:13:20 +0200

>For (1) a standards track document is needed, in my opinion.

This is undisputable and I doubt that it would be an IETF extension 
otherwise.

>to bring this to the IESG.

I maintain that anything that is vendor-specific is outside the scope of 
IETF, but if this is the only way forward I can live with this being 
added to the text.

j