< draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cmd-iana-00.txt		draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cmd-iana-01.txt >
	dime D. Romascanu		dime D. Romascanu
	Internet-Draft Avaya		Internet-Draft Avaya
	Updates: rfc3588 H. Tschofenig		Updates: rfc3588 H. Tschofenig
	(if approved) Nokia Siemens Networks		(if approved) Nokia Siemens Networks
	Intended status: Standards Track June 3, 2009		Intended status: Standards Track July 13, 2009
	Expires: December 5, 2009		Expires: January 14, 2010
	Updated IANA Considerations for Diameter Command Code Allocations		Updated IANA Considerations for Diameter Command Code Allocations
	draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cmd-iana-00.txt		draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cmd-iana-01.txt
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that		Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
	other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-		other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
	Drafts.		Drafts.
	skipping to change at page 1, line 34 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 34 ¶
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at		The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.		http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
	The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at		The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.		http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
	This Internet-Draft will expire on December 5, 2009.		This Internet-Draft will expire on January 14, 2010.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
	publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).		publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
	Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights		Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
	skipping to change at page 4, line 10 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 10 ¶
	6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	The Diameter Base specification, described in RFC 3588 [RFC3588],		The Diameter Base specification, described in RFC 3588 [RFC3588],
	provides a number of ways to extend Diameter, with new Diameter		provides a number of ways to extend Diameter, with new Diameter
	commands, i.e. messages used by Diameter applications, and		commands, i.e. messages used by Diameter applications, and
	applications as the most extensive enhancements. RFC 3588		applications as the most extensive enhancements. RFC3588 illustrates
	illustrates the conditions that lead to the need to define a new		the conditions, which require the definition of a new Diameter
	Diameter application or a new command code. Depending on the scope		application or a new command. Depending on the scope of the Diameter
	of the Diameter extension IETF actions are necessary. Although		extension IETF actions are necessary. Although defining new Diameter
	defining new Diameter applications does not require IETF consensus,		applications does not require IETF consensus, defining new Diameter
	defining new Diameter commands requires IETF consensus per RFC 3588.		commands requires IETF consensus per RFC 3588. This has lead to
	This has lead to questionable design decisions by other Standards		questionable design decisions by other Standards Development
	Development Organizations which chose to define new applications on		Organizations which chose to define new applications on existing
	existing commands rather than asking for assignment of new command		commands rather than asking for assignment of new command codes for
	codes for the pure purpose of avoiding bringing their specifications		the pure purpose of avoiding bringing their specifications to the
	to the IETF. In some cases interoperability problems were causes as		IETF. In some cases interoperability problems were causes as an
	an effect of the poor design caused by overloading existing commands.		effect of the poor design caused by overloading existing commands.
	This document aligns the extensibility rules of Diameter application		This document aligns the extensibility rules for Diameter command
	with the Diameter commands offering ways to delegate work on Diameter		codes with those defined for Diameter application identifiers and
	to other SDOs to extend Diameter in a way that does not lead to poor		offers a consistent way to delegate work on Diameter to other SDOs to
	design choices.		extend Diameter in a way that does not lead to poor design choices.
	This is achieved by splitting the command code space into an IANA		This is achieved by splitting the command code space into ranges and
	administered code space, and a vendors-specific code space with		providing different allocation policies to them: the first range is
	different rules of allocation as per [RFC5226].		reserved for RADIUS backward compatibility, allocation of a command
			code in the second number range requires IETF review, the third range
			is utilized by vendor-specific command codes, and finally the last
			range is for experimental commands. Section 4 provides more details
			about the command code number ranges and the different allocation
			policies are described in [RFC5226].
	A revision of RFC 3588 is currently in development in the IETF DIME		A revision of RFC 3588 is currently in development in the IETF DIME
	WG [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]. and when approved will obsolete RFC		WG [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] and when approved will obsolete RFC
	3588 as well as this document. This document has as a goal providing		3588 as well as this document. This document has as a goal providing
	in advance the change in the command codes allocation policy, so that		in advance the change in the command codes allocation policy, so that
	interoperability problems as the ones described above are avoided as		interoperability problems as the ones described above are avoided as
	soon as possible.		soon as possible.
	2. Conventions used in this document		2. Conventions used in this document
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].		document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
	skipping to change at page 9, line 5 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 14 ¶
	5. Acknowledgements		5. Acknowledgements
	The content of this document is the result of the work in the IETF		The content of this document is the result of the work in the IETF
	Diameter Maintenance and Extensions (dime) working group. We would		Diameter Maintenance and Extensions (dime) working group. We would
	therefore like to thank all the working group members who were		therefore like to thank all the working group members who were
	involved in that discussion. While it appears to be a fairly small		involved in that discussion. While it appears to be a fairly small
	change in the allocation policy the effect on implementations is		change in the allocation policy the effect on implementations is
	rather dramatic.		rather dramatic.
			We would like to thank Mark Jones for his review comments.
	6. References		6. References
	6.1. Normative References		6.1. Normative References
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J.		[RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J.
	Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003.		Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003.
	skipping to change at page 9, line 26 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 26 ¶
	Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004.		Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004.
	[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an		[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
	IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,		IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
	May 2008.		May 2008.
	6.2. Informative References		6.2. Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]		[I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]
	Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,		Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
	"Diameter Base Protocol", draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-17		"Diameter Base Protocol", draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-18
	(work in progress), May 2009.		(work in progress), July 2009.
	[RADTYPE] "IANA, RADIUS Types,		[RADTYPE] "IANA, RADIUS Types,
	http://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types".		http://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types".
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Dan Romascanu		Dan Romascanu
	Avaya		Avaya
	Industrial Park Atidim, Bldg#3		Industrial Park Atidim, Bldg#3
	Tel Aviv 61581		Tel Aviv 61581
End of changes. 9 change blocks.
	26 lines changed or deleted		33 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/