Re: [Dime] RFC 6733 Commands

"Jouni" <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Wed, 19 July 2017 12:25 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1450A131CEC for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 05:25:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0DkPByNP-_xQ for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 05:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x242.google.com (mail-lf0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC92D131CE8 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 05:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x242.google.com with SMTP id l125so202842lfg.5 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 05:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-language:thread-index; bh=p626eL0GCg8ge4d8FRYnOINPeZFpDspmx0yMcKUa5DI=; b=vLVLiC8q2NlTBucD0dnaYpNA5Che8xck9r5GK+/ZmCbbKUtvpKrEkpCZOEstcjtB6B 7ZCmRjNqJ6xHKezr9dZla5o5raK8zLpfkhdPeG5M44+6kfwrbWI9wKKF6k7GQ0zQ6Tw9 zRbeavq10BvwPeCn5lWURIuyAIz1BMSXJjfoFon7V0KAhgtDwOQM9VV6YWkS61+x2rcU prfe/zEl9b7DAlx774RneL0M114K82J/YFnpNK1NvN/kRvyMu45IflVngBDBxk0sMK8W 0sngymFvAdZ67vDhtoOYuQQjFcnF2FpXqoOpBejVhHku8C0fm8wVNomU8G6hcnEa/gEB 1qxQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-language:thread-index; bh=p626eL0GCg8ge4d8FRYnOINPeZFpDspmx0yMcKUa5DI=; b=s9SMVesY0+K8GcKHAsJQBjtod5ZpIcsCHOPTDS58y3oJpiCwqKgN2mkU8Qa+SkjMl7 B9CRvwRoZJLmi/84AwhcQRdqnEuEyZCmXkmPvzZ6834Qr6KPPqZFUf2MShFJ21rzkucU LxjrynqTgYyfcJ37K95kXRx7HSZOeMfYioDF+vhlY9oPXlmRooOCFD/7cZq9wu5BNOIn 9rHHV5IGXgpfARkkV0FvbFOED2aBDHOYNXQe18GXdfU6WZF2O58NXBj4p8FYjEzhJkpE tb0p+4Jt2N2hSrhPQQ1/CtadR/eUpksb7VRX/mRCKEzdHmcEsHgcDJgYXwd4CGnOiJmv zD3A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw110lUjJP9HWe9K4z6KQuHSn6FOsWG2NW1xSjwA7wFhzIA/rR5Lg8 IC21IJud/HEwBb6X
X-Received: by 10.25.31.213 with SMTP id f204mr2383063lff.58.1500467133657; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 05:25:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from JOKO ([83.150.126.201]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t7sm239604lfi.53.2017.07.19.05.25.31 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 19 Jul 2017 05:25:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Jouni" <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
To: "'Bertz, Lyle T [CTO]'" <Lyle.T.Bertz@sprint.com>, "'Yuval Lifshitz'" <ylifshitz@sandvine.com>, <lionel.morand@orange.com>, <dime@ietf.org>
References: <1500286334617.86980@sprint.com>, <8331_1500301978_596CCA9A_8331_333_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E2D1B5E23@OPEXCLILM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <1500303827591.97405@sprint.com> <C43C255C7106314F8D13D03FA20CFE49A8AB7250@wtl-exchp-2.sandvine.com> <559e01d30075$d36b13e0$7a413ba0$@gmail.com> <C43C255C7106314F8D13D03FA20CFE49A8AB729D@wtl-exchp-2.sandvine.com>, <561801d3007e$b95bd940$2c138bc0$@gmail.com> <1500465352738.7744@sprint.com>
In-Reply-To: <1500465352738.7744@sprint.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 15:25:30 +0300
Message-ID: <567b01d3008a$1d8be2b0$58a3a810$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_567C_01D300A3.42E1A630"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AQJ4SKXtVleed+r8bygyRJbzSNgxvwI0ElhcAq0/UBgBqfvIxAIor9D3AXCTSNgCba78QgGaFlwOoJ8e6JA=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/vQdLbI6ns5rMSpSE00ZMwgOCq-M>
Subject: Re: [Dime] RFC 6733 Commands
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 12:25:42 -0000

There is Acct-Application-Id in the CCF.. so what’s the difference?

“If present in a message other than

   CER and CEA, the value of the Acct-Application-Id AVP MUST match the

   Application Id present in the Diameter message header.”

 

 

-        JOuni

 

From: Bertz, Lyle T [CTO] [mailto:Lyle.T.Bertz@sprint.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 14:56 PM
To: Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>om>; 'Yuval Lifshitz'
<ylifshitz@sandvine.com>om>; lionel.morand@orange.com; dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] RFC 6733 Commands

 

My issue (and the motive for the e-mail) is that some lazy implementors tied
the ACR/ACA to 0 which should not have happened.

 

Although optional, having placed the App ID of 3 in the ACR/ACA would have
at least begged the question of how did you miss that?   It is pretty clear
to me that the dev only looked @ the CCF and not the rest of the document.
However, if the app id was in the CCF that specific issue would have been
avoided.

 

We can't fix one's inability to read the whole document but we can take
steps to lower the probability of an error when they take shortcuts.

 

  _____  

From: Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com <mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com> >
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 6:03 AM
To: 'Yuval Lifshitz'; Bertz, Lyle T [CTO]; lionel.morand@orange.com
<mailto:lionel.morand@orange.com> ; dime@ietf.org <mailto:dime@ietf.org> 
Subject: RE: [Dime] RFC 6733 Commands 

 

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 [mailto:ylifshitz@sandvine.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 13:20 PM
To: Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com <mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com> >; 'Bertz,
Lyle T [CTO]' <Lyle.T.Bertz@sprint.com <mailto:Lyle.T.Bertz@sprint.com> >;
lionel.morand@orange.com <mailto:lionel.morand@orange.com> ; dime@ietf.org
<mailto:dime@ietf.org> 
Cc: Yuval Lifshitz <ylifshitz@sandvine.com <mailto:ylifshitz@sandvine.com> >
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,
DWR/A)?

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

 

From: Jouni [mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 1:00 PM
To: Yuval Lifshitz; 'Bertz, Lyle T [CTO]'; lionel.morand@orange.com
<mailto:lionel.morand@orange.com> ; dime@ietf.org <mailto:dime@ietf.org> 
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 [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yuval Lifshitz
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 12:32 PM
To: Bertz, Lyle T [CTO] <Lyle.T.Bertz@sprint.com
<mailto:Lyle.T.Bertz@sprint.com> >; lionel.morand@orange.com
<mailto:lionel.morand@orange.com> ; dime@ietf.org <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
list <dime@ietf.org <mailto:dime@ietf.org> >
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 [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bertz, Lyle T [CTO]
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 6:04 PM
To: lionel.morand@orange.com <mailto:lionel.morand@orange.com> ;
dime@ietf.org <mailto:dime@ietf.org>  list
Subject: Re: [Dime] RFC 6733 Commands

 

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

 

 

  _____  

From: lionel.morand@orange.com <mailto:lionel.morand@orange.com>
<lionel.morand@orange.com <mailto:lionel.morand@orange.com> >
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 9:32 AM
To: Bertz, Lyle T [CTO]; dime@ietf.org <mailto:dime@ietf.org>  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
command.

 

Regards,

 

Lionel 

 

De : DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Bertz, Lyle T [CTO]
Envoyé : lundi 17 juillet 2017 12:12
À : dime@ietf.org <mailto:dime@ietf.org>  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?

 

Lyle

 

  _____  


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
message.

____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________
 
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.