[Dime] Quick review of draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cmd-iana-00.txt

<john.loughney@nokia.com> Tue, 16 June 2009 17:46 UTC

Return-Path: <john.loughney@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B7C928C1B5 for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:46:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sCvqJKzeeJGh for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:46:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-mx09.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.105.134]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40A1228C1B4 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:46:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh105.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.31]) by mgw-mx09.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id n5GHk0Np011125 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:46:30 -0500
Received: from vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.23]) by vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:46:15 +0300
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.7]) by vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:46:10 +0300
Received: from NOK-EUMSG-02.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.87]) by nok-am1mhub-03.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.7]) with mapi; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:46:10 +0200
From: john.loughney@nokia.com
To: dime@ietf.org
Importance: high
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:46:08 +0200
Thread-Topic: Quick review of draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cmd-iana-00.txt
Thread-Index: AcnuqHi7tlI9gXP/SHu3uope/OaB3gAAMpwQ
Message-ID: <1F18D6510CF0474A8C9500565A7E41A20545674479@NOK-EUMSG-02.mgdnok.nokia.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2009 17:46:10.0984 (UTC) FILETIME=[55E74280:01C9EEAA]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Subject: [Dime] Quick review of draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cmd-iana-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:46:46 -0000

Dear Dime-ers,

Here is a quick review of draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cmd-iana-00.txt

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime/current/msg03534.html


Basically, this seems like a reasonable approach to me.  Some specific 
comments:

The introduction says:

   The Diameter Base specification, described in RFC 3588, provides a
   number of ways to extend Diameter, with new Diameter commands, i.e.
   messages used by Diameter applications, and applications as the most
   extensive enhancements.

I am confused by the wording "extensive enhancements" - do you mean " ...common 
ways to extend the protocol"?  If so, then it make sense.

More substantive:

IANA considerations say:

   The values 8,388,608 - 16,777,213 (0x800000 - 0xfffffd) are reserved
   for vendor-specific command codes, to be allocated on a First Come,
   First Served basis by IANA [RFC5226].  The request to IANA for a
   Vendor-Specific Command Code SHOULD include a reference to a publicly
   available specification which documents the command in sufficient
   detail to aid in interoperability between independent
   implementations.  If the specification cannot be made publicly
   available, the request for a vendor-specific command code MUST
   include the contact information of persons and/or entities
   responsible for authoring and maintaining the command.

My biggest worry is that we get a lot of fragmentation in the command code space,
like we have seen with RADIUS, and we just end up making Diameter = 2xRADIUS ...
I don't have a great solution, other than labeling this area as 'EXPERIMENTAL'
code space and if someone wants to upgrade it to a standard, then they should
have a lightweight publication mechanism via the IETF. 

Then again, perhaps the WG has gone through this and understands all of the trade-offs
and implications of this, therefore my worries are no warranted.  If it is so, then I am
fine with this approach.

John