Subject: RE: [AAA-WG]: Application IDs for EAP

From: "Christopher Richards" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:29:51 -0400

Hello All,

So am I correct in reading this thread: the application-id in any message is
not the application to which the message is destined in the peer, but
instead the application-id that the message was defined in the appropriate
RFC or spec?

E.g. If the DCCA server application sends an ASR to the DCCA client, then
the application-id in the ASR is not DCCA but the base Diameter
application-id (0)? 

If that is the case, what is the reasoning behind this? 

Chris Richards.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: June 22, 2004 4:19 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [AAA-WG]: Application IDs for EAP

Hi,

Here's proposed text about the application identifiers:

   When the NASREQ AA-Request (AAR) or AA-Answer (AAA) commands are used 
   for AUTHORIZE_ONLY messages in conjunction with EAP (see Section
   2.3.3), an Application Identifier value of 1 (NASREQ) is used, and
   the commands follow the rules and ABNF defined in [NASREQ].

   Similarly, when the Re-Auth-Request (RAR), Re-Auth-Answer (RAA),
   Session-Termination-Request (STR), Session-Termination-Answer (STA),
   Abort-Session-Request (ASR), Abort-Session-Answer (ASA),
   Accounting-Request (ACR), and Accounting-Answer (ACA) commands are
   used together with the Diameter EAP application, they follow the
   rules in [NASREQ] and [BASE].  The accounting commands use
   Application Identifier value of 3 (Diameter Base Accounting); the
   others use 0 (Diameter Common Messages).

If this is OK, I can submit -08 tomorrow...

Best regards,
Pasi

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:44:20 -0700 (PDT)

> the application-id in the ASR is not DCCA but the base Diameter

Correct.

> If that is the case, what is the reasoning behind this?

The issue is that Diameter agents (such as RADIUS/Diameter gateways) will
fail if an unknown Application-ID is included.  In cases where no new
mandatory AVPs are added, using an existing Application-ID is required
by RFC 3588, since otherwise interoperability would be broken without
any benefits.