Re: [Dime] 99 IETF DIME session notes

"Gunn, Janet P" <> Tue, 18 July 2017 14:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BDE31317BE for <>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 07:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D-GDYJ1GaJIv for <>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 07:53:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A29B131B5D for <>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 07:53:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 18 Jul 2017 10:53:16 -0400
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:53:15 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:53:15 -0400
From: "Gunn, Janet P" <>
To: "A. Jean Mahoney" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Dime] 99 IETF DIME session notes
Thread-Index: AQHS/8umRKiz/plCiUaSjwu1tWWtVaJZqsmA
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 14:53:15 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Dime] 99 IETF DIME session notes
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 14:53:21 -0000

In Martin's statement, I think  "FCC sys rec" should be "FCC CSRIC"


-----Original Message-----
From: DiME [] On Behalf Of A. Jean Mahoney
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 9:42 AM
Subject: [Dime] 99 IETF DIME session notes

Hi all,

Below are my notes from the session yesterday.





1740-1840  July 17, 2017, Monday Afternoon session III meeting room: Karlin III Jabber room: dime at (Please join)

Chairs:Jouni Korhonen, Lionel Morand
AD: Ben Campbell

17:40 - 17:45, Preliminaries, Chairs (5 minutes)

slide 1: Title

Lionel Morand: Jouni is not able to make it to the meeting.

slide 2: Note Well

slide 3: Agenda

Note taker/Jabber scribe: Jean Mahoney

Martin Dolly: when will Diameter security discussion happen?

Lionel: end of the session.

17:45 - 17:50, WG Document Status, Chairs (5 minutes)

*draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-11    --> RFC Ed Queue
*draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-06 --> Waiting for Write-Up
*draft-ietf-dime-group-signaling-08   --> In WG Last Call
*draft-ietf-dime-load-09              --> RFC Ed Queue
*draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis-03        --> In WG Last Call

slide 4: WG Status Update

Lionel: Both overload and load are in the RFC editor queue due to a MISREF. I'll take care of it after this meeting.

Steve Donovan: Just a nit on the slide - I'm the editor on load information, I'm not the editor for 4006bis.

Lionel: Group signaling - the author's think it's ready. We need more reviews. Marco?

Marco Liebsch: we've updated it before Chicago. We've covered all comments. Is ready for expert review.

Lionel: we've received a good technical review from Steve. Needs another before WGLC. Rate control is missing its writeup.

Steve: Has it finished WGLC?

Lionel: Yes, needs writeup. Rate-control didn't receive a deep technical review. Need further review. From SA5 guys in 3GPP, since they are the main users.

slide 5: WG Status update (2/2)

Lionel: AVP level security (e2e) draft has expired - Jouni is not able to support the workload alone. I will go to the SAAG meeting and will ask for support from security experts. Solution doesn't have to be Diameter specific.

Ben Campbell: I would personally like to see this completed. Who will deploy it?

Martin Dolly: next round of FCC sys req, they just finished looking at
SS7 security vulnerabilities, next 2 years they'll look at Diameter. SA3 coming up in 3 weeks. I'll give them discussion paper, a status update of work here. It gets friendly talk there. It's been discussed with regard to 5G and security system. It's now or never, forever-hold-your-peace time.

Lionel: GSMA would like a recommendation. If it's easy to implement, we have ongoing deployment.

Ben: They are welcome to come here and help.

Eric Guttman: for mission-critical deployments, there are 2 security domains - operator domain and mission-critical operator domain. We've looked at securing at a message or component to a SIP message level. The message has to be e2e secure between client and host at the mission-critical ISP. Are there AAA requirements where you can't expose certain AVPs to the operator? Need to check.

Lionel: From the requirements POV, both should be available with the solution. Normally you would only be able to secure signaling between gateways for instance. You may have e2e secure exchange between any Diameter client and any Diameter server.

Martin: I don't think that's a case. 401 specifies that equipment manufacturers must support IPsec for communication within the EPC, but says it optional to deploy. No one has deployed. For 5G, the European operators are fighting pulling the security into the EPC not at the ENodeB. Some of those statements aren't true.

Lionel: Ben, you see there is some interest. We would like to see this work done in IETF.

Ben: I observe an interest in using the work. I need to observe interest in doing the work. Maybe SAAG will help.

Lionel: It's more a security discussion than a Diameter discussion. Need help from security area.

Eric: There was a mechanism for using an SMIME encapsulation. That became historic?

Lionel: deprecated. A new mechanism will be defined outside the base protocol. All new drafts are based on this.

17:50 - 18:35 Individual draft discussions (45 minutes)

17:50 - 18:10 Diameter Policy Groups and Sets, Lyle (20min)

slide 1: Title

slide 2: Predicted Units v02 - Motivation

Lyle: It takes 3-4 minutes to spin up a VM.

slide 3: Predicted Units v02 - Update

Lyle: Have not received any new updates. I would like to ask for adoption.

Lionel: Who has read? I wasn't in the last meeting what was the feeling
in the room?

Ben: Besides the chair and the AD?

Jean: About 7 people total.

Lionel: I've read it and understood the mechanism, which is good. Check
on the ML if there is support for adoption. There's not much to do on
this doc.

slide 4: Intermission

slide 5: Purpose

slide 6: Policy Groups - Update

slide 7: Relationship Model

slide 8: Policy Groups Example 1, Overlap Deduplication at Enforcement
Point - Adding Membership Assignment to Filters

Lyle: SDN switches have limitations of tables (13 tables in OpenFlow).
Can concatenate tables. The rules no longer overlap. How to use your
metadata field and tie it back to a customer?

slide 9: Policy Groups Example 2, Application at the Decision Point Process

Lyle: We don't change the user's relationship to their services
mid-session. Usually reauthorize them before doing that.

slide 10: Applications

slide 11: Next Steps

Lyle: Would like to hear more from the group before asking for adoption.

Lionel: who has read?

Lionel: Go back to the Purpose slide.

Lyle: didn't want to confuse people but wanted a similar aggregation
concept with backwards compatibility. It's similar to ... It's a
membership domain.

Lionel: I need to review it again. It would be useful to have more review.

Lyle: I'm not happy with the examples, I'd like them to be consistent
through the doc.

Lionel: the draft needs to clearly identify why you can't do this with
existing mechanisms.

Lyle: all of our filters are based on time and what's in the packets.
When the time is the same and the rule is a default rule, that's the
most overlap in the system.

Lionel: It's not that clear from the creation of AVP, be good to
describe it.

18:10 - 18:35 Diameter Specification Recommendations, Lyle (25min)

slide 1: Title

slide 2: Motivation

Lyle: 85% of the time, errors due to ambiguity.

slide 3: Findings

Eric Guttman: send this to SA5 charging if you have a delegate.

Lyle: we don't, but wanted to get it out.

slide 4: Methodology

slide 5: Unexpected Use Cases

slide 6: We are not immune

slide 7: Enumerations

slide 8: Recommendations

slide 9: Defined AVP Recommendations

slide 10: Defined AVPs Recommended Formats

slide 11: Imported AVP Recommendations

slide 12: Grouped AVP / Command Refinement

slide 13: Example Refinement

slide 14: Command Recommendations

slide 15: Enumeration Recommendations

slide 16: GAPs for Automated Validation

slide 17: Example to Close Gaps

slide 18: Enumeration Example Format

slide 19: Open Questions

slide 20: Summary

slide 21:  Next steps

Lionel: who has read? (Three people raised hands)

Lyle: Dave Dolson and Jouni read it.

Lionel: in 3GPP it's not really refinement, because in 3GPP just
highlight the AVPs they use. We you take a specification and not reading
anything -

Lyle: they want to just write the code and be done.

Lionel: For new drafts, it should be taken into consideration. For
existing RFCs, these are documentation errors. When it's clarification,
it needs to go through the errata process. For the 3GPP specs, CRs need
to be opened.

Lyle: This has a lot of errors documented. Would this be informational?
How would it progress?

Lionel: It can be informational, and can be referenced by other docs. No
guideline here. Just highlight what could go wrong.

Lyle: I would change the style. Make it more of a report.

Lionel: It's not unusual for the IETF to explain issues with

18:35 - 18:40 Wrap-up and Next, Chairs/AD (5 minutes)

WG Goals/Milestones status - skipped

Next steps/Action Points - Future of the WG

Lionel: We have 3 remaining documents.

Ben: And two that you are thinking of adopting.

Lionel: few people in room, not much activity on the list. I won't be
able to continue with the chair position - too much work in the 3GPP.
Same with Jouni - he changed companies, won't be able to continue. What
is the next step except closing the group?

Ben: The existing documents are post or near WGLC. Those can be in the
hands of the ADs before long. What's you're time frame for needing to
step down?

Lionel: I need to know when to stop adopting new documents. Even for Jouni.

Ben: Of the 2 drafts for the adoption - the predictive units can be AD
sponsored. The group one is on the border, a little more complex. I
don't have to be the AD that sponsors it.

Lionel: For the group one, I need to see more interest.

Ben: even if I AD sponsor, I want someone to review them.

Lionel: E2E security needs to be done. If we get volunteers from SAAG.

Ben: lets see what happens in SAAG. If there's interest - maybe we can
spin up some mini-group. Or just speculating here - recharter dime with
new chairs to just do that.

Lionel: If it is only to go with existing drafts, I think it can be done
in short timeframe. Need to confirm with Jouni. Defining new charter
with new chairs may not be useful.

Ben: E2E security may go into the security area.

Lionel: Are there any other comments? (none from the room). To summarize
- existing WG documents will be pushed forward. For predictive units,
confirm on ML that it's a WG doc, for the group one, we'll check. After
those documents, we'll close the WG.

Ben: Those 2 new drafts - predictive definitely and maybe group - can be
AD sponsored. They can still change to AD sponsorship if we need to
close the working group sooner. I'm skeptical of bringing new work into
the group, unless we see interest.

Lionel: Thank you.

ACTION: Chairs to push existing WG documents forward.

ACTION: Lionel to bring the e2e security draft to the SAAG session this
week to ask for support in finishing it.

ACTION: Confirm interest on mailing list for adopting

ACTION: Confirm interest on mailing list for adopting

ACTION: Ben to look more closely at draft-bertz-dime-policygroups as a
candidate for AD sponsorship.

DiME mailing list

This electronic message transmission contains information from CSRA that may be attorney-client privileged, proprietary or confidential. The information in this message is intended only for use by the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you have received this message in error, please contact me immediately and be aware that any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. NOTE: Regardless of content, this email shall not operate to bind CSRA to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of email for such purpose.