Subject: [AAA-WG]: Issue #352

From: Pete McCann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:25:30 -0500

Hi,

I wanted to make sure everyone is reading the IANA Considerations
section of draft-12.

I think the current text is not quite correct with respect to the new
experimental Application ID space.  Because these IDs can appear by
themselves in a Diameter header, they really need to be centrally
administered, rather than for Private Use as stated in Section 11.3.
While I would personally favor First Come First Served for this space,
I don't think we could realistically expect the IESG to go along.  How
about Designated Expert Review as the assignment policy?

This would work as follows.  First, the existing text from 11.3:

> 11.3  Application Identifiers
>
>    As defined in section 2.4, the Application Identifier is used to
>    identify a specific Diameter Application. There are standards-track
>    application ids and vendor specific application ids.
> 
>    IANA [IANA] will assign the range 0x00000001 to 0x00ffffff for
>    standards-track applications; and 0xff00000000 - 0xfffffffe for
>    vendor specific applications.
> 
>    Both Application-Id and Acct-Application-Id AVPs use the same
>    Application Identifier space.
> 
>    Vendor-Specific Application Identifiers, encoded in the Vendor-
>    Specific-Application-Id Grouped AVP, with the Vendor-Id AVP set to
>    the vendor's enterprise number, is for Private Use.
>
>    Note that the Diameter protocol is not intended to be extended for
>    any purpose. Any applications defined MUST ensure that they fit
>    within the existing framework, and that no changes to the base
>    protocol are required.

I propose to strike the last two paragraphs above, and add instead:

>  Vendor-Specific Application Identifiers, encoded in the Vendor-
>  Specific-Application-Id Grouped AVP with the Vendor-Id AVP set to
>  the vendor's enterprise number, and appearing in the Diameter
>  header, will be assigned by IANA after review by a Designated
>  Expert.  The Expert will ensure that the requested application fits
>  within the existing Diameter framework, does not require changes to
>  the base protocol, and does not cause interoperability problems
>  with any existing Diameter application before approving the
>  assignment.

I hope this sort of wording would satisfy all the interested parties;
it does not allow for completely uncontrolled creation of Diameter
applications, but I think the Designated Expert Review process is the
least onerous to follow.  The language should address all of the IESG
concerns regarding interoperability.

-Pete