idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update-06.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (October 12, 2010) is 4938 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-34) exists of draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-25 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4960 (Obsoleted by RFC 9260) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group K. Jiao 3 Internet-Draft Huawei 4 Intended status: Standards Track G. Zorn 5 Expires: April 15, 2011 Network Zen 6 October 12, 2010 8 The Diameter Capabilities Update Application 9 draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update-06 11 Abstract 13 This document defines a new Diameter application and associated 14 command codes. The Capabilities Update application is intended to 15 allow the dynamic update of certain Diameter peer capabilities while 16 the peer-to-peer connection is in the open state. 18 Status of this Memo 20 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 21 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 23 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 24 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 25 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 26 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 28 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 29 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 30 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 31 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 33 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 15, 2011. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 38 document authors. All rights reserved. 40 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 41 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 42 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 43 publication of this document. Please review these documents 44 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 45 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 46 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 47 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 48 described in the Simplified BSD License. 50 Table of Contents 52 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 2. Specification of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 3. Diameter Protocol Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 4. Capabilities Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 4.1. Command-Code Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 4.1.1. Capabilities-Update-Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 4.1.2. Capabilities-Update-Answer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 60 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 61 6.1. Application Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 6.2. Command Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 68 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 70 1. Introduction 72 Capabilities exchange is an important component of the Diameter Base 73 Protocol [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis], allowing peers to exchange 74 identities and Diameter capabilities (protocol version number, 75 supported Diameter applications, security mechanisms, etc.). As 76 defined in RFC 3588, however, the capabilities exchange process takes 77 place only once, at the inception of a transport connection between a 78 given pair of peers. Therefore, if a peer's capabilities change (due 79 to software update, for example), the existing connection(s) must be 80 torn down (along with all of the associated user sessions) and 81 restarted before the modified capabilities can be advertised. 83 This document defines a new Diameter application intended to allow 84 the dynamic update of a subset of Diameter peer capabilities over an 85 existing connection. Because the Capabilities Update application 86 specified herein operates over an existing transport connection, 87 modification of certain capabilities is prohibited. Specifically, 88 modifying the security mechanism in use is not allowed; if the 89 security method used between a pair of peers is changed the affected 90 connection MUST be restarted. 92 Discussion of this draft may be directed to the dime Working Group of 93 the IETF (dime@ietf.org). 95 2. Specification of Requirements 97 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 98 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 99 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 101 3. Diameter Protocol Considerations 103 This section details the relationship of the Diameter Capabilities 104 Update application to the Diameter Base Protocol. 106 This document specifies Diameter Application-ID . Diameter 107 nodes conforming to this specification MUST advertise support by 108 including the value in the Auth-Application-Id of the 109 Capabilities-Exchange-Request (CER) and Capabilities-Exchange-Answer 110 (CEA) commands [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]. 112 4. Capabilities Update 114 When the capabilities of a Diameter node conforming to this 115 specification change, it MUST notify all of the nodes with which it 116 has an open transport connection and have also advertised support for 117 the Capabilities Update application using the Capabilities-Update- 118 Request (CUR) message (Section 4.1.1). This message allows the 119 update of a peer's capabilities (supported Diameter applications, 120 etc.). 122 A Diameter node only issues a given command to those peers that have 123 advertised support for the Diameter application that defines the 124 command; a Diameter node must cache the supported applications in 125 order to ensure that unrecognized commands and/or Attibute-Value 126 Pairs (AVPs) are not unnecessarily sent to a peer. 128 The receiver of the CUR MUST determine common applications by 129 computing the intersection of its own set of supported Application Id 130 against all of the application identifier AVPs (Auth-Application-Id, 131 Acct-Application-Id and Vendor-Specific- Application-Id) present in 132 the CUR. The value of the Vendor-Id AVP in the Vendor-Specific- 133 Application-Id MUST NOT be used during computation. 135 If the receiver of a CUR does not have any applications in common 136 with the sender then it MUST return a Capabilities-Update-Answer 137 (CUA) (Section 4.1.2) with the Result-Code AVP set to 138 DIAMETER_NO_COMMON_APPLICATION, and SHOULD disconnect the transport 139 layer connection; however, if active sessions are using the 140 connection, peers MAY delay disconnection until the sessions can be 141 redirected or gracefully terminated. Note that receiving a CUA from 142 a peer advertising itself as a Relay (see [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis], 143 Section 2.4) MUST be interpreted as having common applications with 144 the peer. 146 As for CER/CEA messages, the CUR and CUA messages MUST NOT be 147 proxied, redirected or relayed. 149 Even though the CUR/CUA messages cannot be proxied, it is still 150 possible for an upstream agent to receive a message for which there 151 are no peers available to handle the application that corresponds to 152 the Command-Code. This could happen if, for example, the peers are 153 too busy or down. In such instances, the 'E' bit MUST be set in the 154 answer message with the Result-Code AVP set to 155 DIAMETER_UNABLE_TO_DELIVER to inform the downstream peer to take 156 action (e.g., re-routing requests to an alternate peer). 158 4.1. Command-Code Values 160 This section defines Command-Code [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] values 161 that MUST be supported by all Diameter implementations conforming to 162 this specification. The following Command Codes are defined in this 163 document: Capabilities-Update-Request (CUR, Section 4.1.1) and 164 Capabilities-Update-Answer (CUA, Section 4.1.2). 166 4.1.1. Capabilities-Update-Request 168 The Capabilities-Update-Request (CUR), indicated by the Command-Code 169 set to and the Command Flags' 'R' bit set, is sent to update 170 local capabilities. Upon detection of a transport failure, this 171 message MUST NOT be sent to an alternate peer. 173 When Diameter is run over the Stream Control Transmission Protocol 174 [RFC4960], which allows connections to span multiple interfaces and 175 multiple IP addresses, the Capabilities-Update-Request message MUST 176 contain one Host-IP-Address AVP for each potential IP address that 177 may be locally used when transmitting Diameter messages. 179 Message Format 181 ::= < Diameter Header: TBD2, REQ > 182 { Origin-Host } 183 { Origin-Realm } 184 1* { Host-IP-Address } 185 { Vendor-Id } 186 { Product-Name } 187 [ Origin-State-Id ] 188 * [ Supported-Vendor-Id ] 189 * [ Auth-Application-Id ] 190 * [ Acct-Application-Id ] 191 * [ Vendor-Specific-Application-Id ] 192 [ Firmware-Revision ] 193 * [ AVP ] 195 4.1.2. Capabilities-Update-Answer 197 The Capabilities-Update-Answer, indicated by the Command-Code set to 198 and the Command Flags' 'R' bit cleared, is sent in response to 199 a CUR message. 201 Message Format 203 ::= < Diameter Header: TBD3 > 204 { Origin-Host } 205 { Origin-Realm } 206 { Result-Code } 207 [ Error-Message ] 208 * [ AVP ] 210 5. Security Considerations 212 The security considerations applicable to the Diameter Base Protocol 213 [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] are also applicable to this document. 215 6. IANA Considerations 217 This section explains the criteria to be used by the IANA for 218 assignment of numbers within namespaces used within this document. 220 6.1. Application Identifier 222 This specification assigns the value from the Application 223 Identifiers namespace [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]. See Section 3 for 224 the assignment of the namespace in this specification. 226 6.2. Command Codes 228 This specification assigns the values and from the 229 Command Codes namespace [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]. See Section 4.1 230 for the assignment of the namespace in this specification. 232 7. Contributors 234 This document is based upon work done by Tina Tsou. 236 8. Acknowledgements 238 Thanks to Sebastien Decugis, Niklas Neumann, Subash Comerica, Lionel 239 Morand, Dan Romascanu, Dan Harkins and Ravi for helpful review and 240 discussion. 242 9. References 244 9.1. Normative References 246 [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] 247 Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn, 248 "Diameter Base Protocol", draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-25 249 (work in progress), September 2010. 251 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 252 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 254 9.2. Informative References 256 [RFC4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", 257 RFC 4960, September 2007. 259 Authors' Addresses 261 Jiao Kang 262 Huawei Technologies 263 Section B1, Huawei Industrial Base 264 Bantian, Longgang District 265 Shenzhen 518129 266 P.R. China 268 Phone: +86 755 2878-6690 269 Email: kangjiao@huawei.com 271 Glen Zorn 272 Network Zen 273 227/358 Thanon Sanphawut 274 Bang Na, Bangkok 10260 275 Thailand 277 Phone: +66 (0) 87-040-4617 278 Email: gwz@net-zen.net