Re: [Dime] RFC 6733 Commands

"Jouni" <> Wed, 19 July 2017 11:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB802131CA8 for <>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 04:04:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6hZb0iQn_zpe for <>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 04:04:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 298B5131CA4 for <>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 04:04:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id l125so88937lfg.5 for <>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 04:04:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-language:thread-index; bh=rDHZxAKHR0Bv4fSp5gBDu6+Gsvi3xckl5LLTIlKqpJk=; b=QxY8rsX9ZF3P1oCU2hEVKu5D9NW5CzlDqs9EQw0sQgEAHPpIzvRQ+8I6JI0rc5Vk1E UkJ1Z7mgYp9+xAnCfEKSeaDEYhxadr10YWNly1dyEG8RTIwsUlMFoQYtMCJzxLyvUdVW RRq6je/3eWyqhCYMFYS7Ndpn5GSEOsoFEOVGmoa2QA0bE/3wW+rxJ97hZERPmTO0+jvd QyDbvtoOwmxMoePfi8nws5VBLvxZDukr9x1SPDPWzCA0KTmaBv5xTjPoBHyqUJqV+bfl kZO++tm5yS8SQ+5ovFvJCRgzjs9bjjBQ6N/EVZgw2a8NW7TwlV4s6IQq8TiwqVhkS58k inXg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-language:thread-index; bh=rDHZxAKHR0Bv4fSp5gBDu6+Gsvi3xckl5LLTIlKqpJk=; b=P2LnkmInm3+CcsF/+D35LqHV9SCjmAN6ZtNZcEO1eaTvHSFKyA2O4ds9vC6yKx1stS 7r5534Nu/m7w4W2d24TmMV81CNDITB5U8+ASFzY7h0FMEnyWaaGCH+UKjAfrckOazPue /CAzj2rf7TzVuvysogxo2M7Ae4V8BE3eEc8qSDG4l/YVL1euVEufiqhhoi8ZdXnogrOJ ySjNHmeRU/SvkuiUcsuMSYpcwWl/4JDFHX2No2k4g36le/7icAKQiKy1lV8bgeYQFaMQ Q12ugPqH2uMfEdc01TZvsZNopbD3i/qwVpcaTo/c1n5QQyTDIp7p9uBZO6haAA3fcYNm tAvg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw1106W42ZtKLR/qs8JrHwoOwawMTg3k0rTKtImEIyJt5ycsjIM/yq 9/wLTHYpZRUM2qhG
X-Received: by with SMTP id g15mr1908717lfh.161.1500462241247; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 04:04:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from JOKO ([]) by with ESMTPSA id g1sm17959ljd.91.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 19 Jul 2017 04:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Jouni" <>
To: "'Yuval Lifshitz'" <>, "'Bertz, Lyle T [CTO]'" <>, <>, <>
References: <>, <8331_1500301978_596CCA9A_8331_333_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E2D1B5E23@OPEXCLILM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <> <559e01d30075$d36b13e0$7a413ba0$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 14:03:59 +0300
Message-ID: <561801d3007e$b95bd940$2c138bc0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_5619_01D30097.DEACE1D0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AQJ4SKXtVleed+r8bygyRJbzSNgxvwI0ElhcAq0/UBgBqfvIxAIor9D3AXCTSNigv0RKQA==
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Dime] RFC 6733 Commands
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: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 11:04:07 -0000

If you go for new protocol version that opens a door for a lot of things.
Generally adding commands to base protocol using app-id 0 is not possible
without a new protocol version. I do not see a reason for any extra
clarifications. I would be reluctant to assume app-id 0 is forever for peer
level commands. We have other ways to impose that restriction at the AVP
level where such things actually belong (see Section 6.1).


-        JOuni


From: Yuval Lifshitz [] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 13:20 PM
To: Jouni <>om>; 'Bertz, Lyle T [CTO]'
Cc: Yuval Lifshitz <>
Subject: RE: [Dime] RFC 6733 Commands


You mean, that if someone implement a new protocol but does not change
definitions from base, not add any new stuff which is mandatory, they are
allowed to use application-id zero for commands other than (CERA, DPR/A,

Shouldn’t we block that? Would imagine there are implementations where they
assume zero is only for peer level messages?


From: Jouni [] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 1:00 PM
To: Yuval Lifshitz; 'Bertz, Lyle T [CTO]';
<> ; <> 
Subject: RE: [Dime] RFC 6733 Commands


Unless you extend and existing application within the rules in Section 1.3.4
you always get a new application. And if you wish to extend the existing
base protocol application with new commands that most likely would require a
new protocol version. I think we are good here with the current text.


-        Jouni 


From: DiME [] On Behalf Of Yuval Lifshitz
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 12:32 PM
To: Bertz, Lyle T [CTO] <
<> >;
<> ; <>
list < <> >
Subject: Re: [Dime] RFC 6733 Commands


Actually, we may have an issue there. The spec says that zero must be used
for base protocol messages (page 23):


Diameter messages pertaining to peer connection

   establishment and maintenance such as CER/CEA, DWR/DWA, and DPR/DPA

   MUST carry an Application Id of zero (0).


But does not say that it must not be used for anything else (or at least I
failed to find such text). Do you think such text should be added?

Note that there is such text regarding vendor-id.


From: DiME [] On Behalf Of Bertz, Lyle T [CTO]
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 6:04 PM
To: <> ; <>  list
Subject: Re: [Dime] RFC 6733 Commands


agreed, we have encountered some folks tying the ACR/ACA to app id 0 in open




From: <>
< <> >
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 9:32 AM
To: Bertz, Lyle T [CTO]; <>  list
Subject: RE: RFC 6733 Commands 


Hi Lyle,


I think that there is no specific reason. By definition, the command is
independent of any application. So when describing the command code, it may
or may not be contained in the command code header. It is consistent with
the CCF specification:


   header           = "<Diameter-Header:" command-id

                         [r-bit] [p-bit] [e-bit] [application-id]">"


The CCF is mainly used to identify the set of AVP that can be present in the






De : DiME [] De la part de Bertz, Lyle T [CTO]
Envoyé : lundi 17 juillet 2017 12:12
À : <>  list
Objet : [Dime] RFC 6733 Commands


In the spec was there a particular reason why we did not specify the
application Identifier in the header for each of the command codes, e.g.
ACR/ACA assigned to application ID 3?





This e-mail may contain Sprint proprietary information intended for the sole
use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu
ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.