[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-fajardo-dime-app-design-guide) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Diameter Maintanence and                                 V. Fajardo, Ed.
Extensions (DIME)                          Toshiba America Research Inc.
Internet-Draft                                                T. Asveren
Intended status: Informational                             Sonus Network
Expires: May 28, 2009                                      H. Tschofenig
                                                  Nokia Siemens Networks
                                                             G. McGregor
                                                          Alcatel-Lucent
                                                             J. Loughney
                                                   Nokia Research Center
                                                       November 24, 2008


                Diameter Applications Design Guidelines
                draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide-08.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 28, 2009.

Abstract

   The Diameter Base protocol provides updated rules on how to extend
   Diameter by modifying and/or deriving from existing applications or
   creating entirely new applications.  This is a companion document to
   the Diameter Base protocol that further explains and clarifies these
   rules.  It is meant as a guidelines document and therefore it does



Fajardo, et al.           Expires May 28, 2009                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines   November 2008


   not add, remove or change existing rules.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  Adding a new command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   5.  Deleting a Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   6.  Reusing Existing Commands  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     6.1.  Adding AVPs to a Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     6.2.  Deleting AVPs from a Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   7.  Reusing Existing AVPs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   8.  Rules for new Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     8.1.  Use of Application-Id in a Message . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     8.2.  Application Specific Session State Machine . . . . . . . .  9
   9.  End-to-End Applications Capabilities Exchange  . . . . . . . .  9
   10. Diameter Accounting Support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   11. Generic Diameter Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   12. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   13. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   14. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   15. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 17






















Fajardo, et al.           Expires May 28, 2009                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines   November 2008


1.  Introduction

   The Diameter Base protocol document defines rules on how one would
   extend Diameter (see Section 1.2 of [1]).  In the context of this
   document, extending Diameter means one of the following:

   1.  A new functionality is being added to an existing Diameter
       application without defining a new application.

   2.  A new Diameter application is being defined by extending an
       existing application.

   3.  A completely new application is being defined that has nothing in
       common with existing applications.

   4.  A new generic functionality is being defined that can be reused
       across different applications.

   All of these choices are design decisions that can done by any
   combination of reusing existing or defining new commands, AVPs or AVP
   values.  Protocol designers do, however, not have total freedom when
   making their design.  A number of rules defined in [1] place
   constraints on when an extension demands a new Diameter Application
   to be defined or a new Command Code to be registered.  The objective
   of this document is the following:

   o  Clarify updated Diameter extensibility rules in the Diameter Base
      Protocol.

   o  Clarify usage of certain Diameter functionalitiessi which are not
      explicitly described in the Diameter Base specification.

   o  Discuss design choices and provide guidelines when defining
      applications.

   o  Present tradeoffs of design choices.



2.  Terminology

   This document reuses the terminology used in [1].


3.  Overview

   As it is currently interpreted and practiced, the Diameter Base
   protocol is a two-layer protocol.  The lower layer is mainly



Fajardo, et al.           Expires May 28, 2009                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines   November 2008


   responsible for managing connections between neighboring peers and
   for message routing.  The upper layer is where the Diameter
   applications reside.  This model is in line with a Diameter node
   having an application layer and a peer-to-peer delivery layer.  The
   Diameter Base protocol document completely defines the architecture
   and behavior of the message delivery layer and then provides the
   framework for designing Diameter applications on the application
   layer.  This framework includes definitions of application sessions
   and accounting support (see Section 8 and 9 of [1]).  The remainder
   of this document also treats a Diameter node as a single instance of
   a Diameter message delivery layer and one or more Diameter
   applications using it.

   Extending Diameter can mean the reuse of commands, AVPs and AVP
   values in any combination for the purpose of inheriting the features
   of an existing Diameter application.  This section discusses the
   rules on how such reuse can be done.

   When reusing existing applications, the requirements of the new
   applications are typically not completely unique and hence a lot can
   be re-used from existing specifications.  Therefore, there is a
   greater likelihood of ambiguity on how much of the existing
   application can be reused and what would be the implications for both
   the new and existing application.  To broadly categorize, the rules
   for reusing existing applications can fall into two categories, as
   listed below.

   Minor Extension:  This, for example, is the case when optional AVPs
      are being defined.  In general, this includes everything that is
      not covered by the next category.  The standardization effort will
      be fairly small.

   Major Extension:  Such an extension requires the definition of a new
      Diameter application.  The rules outlined in Section 1.2 of [1]
      indicate when an extension requires a a new Command Code to be
      registered and when new Diameter applications have to be defined.
      Typically, these types of extensions require a longer and more
      careful effort depending on the degree of re-use.  Therefore, the
      amount of time and effort to complete the specification should
      also be considered by the designer.

   The subsequent sections provide discussions about the specific
   Diameter Base protocol rules.


4.  Adding a new command

   Adding a new command is considered a major extension and requires a



Fajardo, et al.           Expires May 28, 2009                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines   November 2008


   new Diameter application to be defined.  Adding a new command to an
   application means either defining a completely new command or
   importing an existing command from another application whereby the
   new application inherits some or all of the functionality of the
   application where the command came from.  In the former case, the
   decision to create an new application is straightforward since this
   is typically a result of adding a new functionality that does not
   exist yet.  For the latter, the decision will depend on whether
   importing the command in a new application is more suitable than
   simply using the existing application as it is in conjunction with
   any other application.  Therefore, a case by case study of each
   application requirement should be applied.

   In general, it is difficult to come to a hard guideline, and so a
   case by case study of each application requirement should be applied.
   Before adding or importing a command, application designers should
   consider the following:

   o  Can the new functionality be fulfilled by creating a new
      application independent from the existing applications?  In this
      case, both old and new application can work independent of, but
      cooperating with each other.

   o  Can the existing application be reused without major extensions
      that requires the definition of a new application, e.g. new
      funtionality introduced by the creation of new optional AVPs.

   o  Care should be taken to avoid a liberal method of importing
      existing commands that results in a monolithic and hard to manage
      application which supports many different functionalities.




5.  Deleting a Command

   Although this process is not typical, removing a command to an
   application requires a new Diameter application to be defined.  It is
   unusual to delete an existing command from an application for the
   sake of deleting it or the functionality it represents.  This
   normally indicates of a flawed design.  An exception might be if the
   intent of the deletion is to create a newer version of the same
   application which is somehow simpler than the previous version.


6.  Reusing Existing Commands

   This section discusses rules in adding and/or deleting AVPs from an



Fajardo, et al.           Expires May 28, 2009                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines   November 2008


   existing command of an existing application.  The cases described in
   this section may not necessarily result in the creation of new
   applications.

6.1.  Adding AVPs to a Command

   Based on the rules in [1], AVPs that are added to an existing command
   can be categorized into:

   o  Mandatory to understand AVPs.  As defined in [1], these are AVPs
      with the M-bit flag set, which means that a Diameter node
      receiving are required to understand not only their values but
      their semantics.  Failure to do so will cause an message handling
      error.  This is regardless of whether these AVPs are required or
      optional as specified by the commands ABNF.

   o  Optional AVPs.  [TBD]

   The rules are strict in the case where the AVPs to be added are
   mandatory.  A mandatory AVP cannot be added to or deleted from an
   existing command with defining a new Diameter application. [1] states
   that doing so would require the definition of a new application.
   This falls into the "Major Extensions" category.  Despite the clarity
   of the rule, ambiguity still arises when trying to decide whether a
   new AVP being added should be mandatory to begin with.  The follow
   are a few common questions that application designers should
   contemplate when trying to decide:

   o  Is it required for the receiving side to be able to process and
      understand the AVP and its content (rather than just writing it's
      content into to a file)?

   o  Do the AVPs change the state machine of the application ?

   o  Would the presence of the new AVPs (or the newly specified value
      contained in an existing AVP) lead to a different number of
      roundtrips, effectively changing the state machine of the
      application?

   o  Would the AVP be used to differentiate between old and new
      versions of the same application whereby the two versions are not
      backward compatible?

   o  Will it have duality in meaning, i.e., be used to carry
      application related information as well as be used to indicate
      that the message is for a new application?

   When one of the above questions can be answered with 'yes' then the



Fajardo, et al.           Expires May 28, 2009                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines   November 2008


   M-bit has to be set.  If application designers are contemplating on
   the use of optional AVPs instead, then the following are some of the
   pitfalls that should be avoided:


   o  Use of optional AVPs with intersecting meaning.  One AVP has
      partially the same usage and meaning as another AVP.  The presence
      of both can lead to confusion.

   o  An optional AVPs with dual purpose, i.e. to carry applications
      data as well as to indicate support for one or more features.
      This has a tendency to introduce interpretation issues.

   o  Adding one or more optional AVPs and indicating (usually within
      descriptive text for the command) that at least one of them has to
      be present in the command.  This essentially circumventing the
      ABNF and is equivalent to adding a mandatory AVPs to the command.

   These practices generally result in interoperability issues and
   should be avoided as much as possible.

6.2.  Deleting AVPs from a Command

   When deleting an AVP from a Command the following cases need to be
   differentiated:

   o  An AVP that is indicated as {} in the ABNF in the Command (with or
      without the M-bit set).  In this case the new Command Code and
      subsequently a new Diameter application has to be specified.

   o  An AVP that is indicated as [] in the ABNF in the Command (with
      the M-bit set).  No new Command Code has to be specified but the
      definition of a new Diameter application is required.

   o  An AVP that is indicated as [] in the ABNF in the Command (without
      the M-bit set).  In this case the AVP can be deleted without
      consequences.


   If possible application designers should attempt the reuse the
   Command ABNF without modification and simply ignore (but not delete)
   any optional AVP that will not be used.  This is to maintain
   compatibility with existing applications that will not know about the
   new functionality as well as maintain the integrity of existing
   dictionaries.






Fajardo, et al.           Expires May 28, 2009                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines   November 2008


7.  Reusing Existing AVPs

   This section discusses rules in adding, deleting or modifying the
   specified values of an AVP.

   When reusing AVPs in a new application, the AVP flag setting, such as
   the mandatory flag ('M'-bit), has to be re-evaluated for a new
   Diameter application and, if necessary, even for every Command within
   the application.  In general, for AVPs defined outside of the base
   protocol, its mandatory characteristics are tied to its role within
   an application and Command.


8.  Rules for new Applications

   The general theme of Diameter extensibility is to reuse commands,
   AVPs and AVP values as much as possible.  However, some of the
   extensibility rules described in the previous section also apply to
   scenarios where a designer is trying to define a completely new
   Diameter application.

   This section discusses the case where new applications have
   requirements that cannot be filled by existing applications and would
   require definition of completely new commands, AVPs and/or AVP
   values.  Typically, there is little ambiguity about the decision to
   create these types of applications.  Some examples are the interfaces
   defined for the IP Multimedia Subsystem of 3GPP, i.e.  Cx/Dx ([2] and
   [3]), Sh ([4] and [5]) etc.

   Application designers should also follow the theme of Diameter
   extensibility which in this case means to import existing AVPs and
   AVP values for any newly defined commands.  In certain cases where
   accounting will be used, the models described in Section 10 should
   also be considered.  Though some decisions may be clear, designers
   should also consider certain aspects of defining a new application.
   Some of these aspects are described in following sections.

8.1.  Use of Application-Id in a Message

   When designing new applications, designers should specify that the
   application ID carried in all session level messages must be the
   application ID of the application using those messages.  This
   includes the session level messages defined in base protocol, i.e.,
   RAR/RAA, STR/STA, ASR/ASA and possibly ACR/ACA in the coupled
   accounting model, see Section 10.  Existing specifications may not
   adhere to this rule for historical or other reasons.  However, this
   scheme should be followed to avoid possible routing problems for
   these messages.



Fajardo, et al.           Expires May 28, 2009                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines   November 2008


   In general, when a new application has been allocated with a new
   application id and it also reuses existing commands with or without
   modifications (Sec 4.1), it must use the newly allocated application
   id in the header and in all relevant application id AVPs (Auth-
   Application-Id or Acct-Application-Id) present in the commands
   message body.

   Additionally, application designs using
   Vendor-Specific-Application-Id AVP should not use the Vendor-Id AVP
   to further dissect or differentiate the vendor-specification
   application id.  Diameter routing is not based on the Vendor-Id.  As
   such, the Vendor-ID should not be used as an additional input for
   routing or delivery of messages.  In general, the Vendor-Id AVP is an
   informational AVP only and kept for backward compatibility reasons.

8.2.  Application Specific Session State Machine

   Section 8 of [1] provides session state machines for authentication,
   authorization and accounting (AAA) services.  When a new application
   is being defined that cannot clearly be categorized into any of these
   services it is recommended that the application itself define its own
   session state machine.  The existing session state machines defined
   by [1] is not intended for general use beyond AAA services, therefore
   any behavior not covered by that category would not fit well.
   Support for server initiated request is a clear example where an
   application specific session state machine would be needed, for
   example, the Rw interface for ITU-T push model.


9.  End-to-End Applications Capabilities Exchange

   It is also possible that applications can use optional AVPs to
   exchange application specific capabilities and features.  These AVPs
   are exchanged on an end-to-end basis.  Examples of this can be found
   in [6] and [7].

   The end-to-end capabilities AVPs can aid in the following cases:

   o  Formalizing the way new functionality is added to existing
      applications by announcing support for it.

   o  Applications that do not understand these AVP can discard it upon
      receipt.  In such case, senders of the AVP can also safely assume
      the receiving end-point does not support any functionality carried
      by the AVP if it is not present in subsequent responses.






Fajardo, et al.           Expires May 28, 2009                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines   November 2008


   o  Useful in cases where deployment choices are offered and the
      generic design can be made available for a number of applications.

   Note that this list is not meant to be comprehensive.


10.  Diameter Accounting Support

   Accounting can be treated as an auxiliary application which is used
   in support of other applications.  In most cases, accounting support
   is required when defining new applications.  This document provides
   two(2) possible models for using accounting:

   Split Accounting Model

      In this model, the accounting messages will use the Diameter base
      accounting application ID (value of 3).  The design implication
      for this is that the accounting is treated as an independent
      application, especially during Diameter routing.  This means that
      accounting commands emanating from an application may be routed
      separately from the rest of the other application messages.  This
      may also imply that the messages generally end up in a central
      accounting server.  A split accounting model is a good design
      choice when:

      *  The application itself will not define its own unique
         accounting commands.

      *  The overall system architecture permits the use of centralized
         accounting for one or more Diameter applications.

      Centralizing accounting may have advantages but there are also
      drawbacks.  The model assumes that the accounting server can
      somehow differentiate received accounting messages.  Since the
      received accounting messages can be for any application and/or
      service, the accounting server has to be have a method to uniquely
      match accounting messages with applications and/or services being
      accounted for.  This may mean defining new AVPs, checking the
      presence, absence or contents of existing AVPs or checking the
      contents of the accounting records itself.  But in general, there
      is no clean and generic scheme for sorting these messages.
      Therefore, the use of this model is recommended only when all
      received accounting messages can be clearly identified and sorted.
      For most cases, the use of Coupled Accounting Model is
      recommended.






Fajardo, et al.           Expires May 28, 2009                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines   November 2008


   Coupled Accounting Model

      In this model, the accounting messages will use the application ID
      of the application using the accounting service.  The design
      implication for this is that the accounting messages are tightly
      coupled with the application itself; meaning that accounting
      messages will be routed like any other application messages.  It
      would then be the responsibility of the application server
      (application entity receiving the ACR message) to send the
      accounting records carried by the accounting messages to the
      proper accounting server.  The application server is also
      responsible for formulating a proper response (ACA).  A coupled
      accounting model is a good design choice when:

      *  The system architecture or deployment will not provide an
         accounting server that supports Diameter.

      *  The system architecture or deployment requires that the
         accounting service for the specific application should be
         handled by the application itself.

      *  The application server is provisioned to use a different
         protocol to access the accounting server; e.g., via LDAP, SOAP
         etc.  This includes attempting to support older accounting
         systems that are not Diameter aware.

      In all cases above, there will generally be no direct Diameter
      access to the accounting server.

   These models provide a basis for using accounting messages.
   Application designers may obviously deviate from these models
   provided that the factors being addressed here have also been taken
   into account.  Though it is not recommended, examples of other
   methods might be defining a new set of commands to carry application
   specific accounting records.


11.  Generic Diameter Extensions

   Generic Diameter extensions are AVPs, commands or applications that
   are designed to support other Diameter applications.  They are
   auxiliary applications meant to improve or enhance the Diameter
   protocol itself or Diameter applications/functionality.  Some
   examples include the extensions to support auditing and redundancy
   (see [12]), improvements in duplicate detection scheme (see [13]),
   and piggybacking of QoS attributes (see [7]).

   Since generic extensions can cover many aspects of Diameter and



Fajardo, et al.           Expires May 28, 2009                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines   November 2008


   Diameter applications, it is not possible to enumerate all the
   probable scenarios in this document.  However, some of the most
   common considerations are as follows:

   o  Backward compatibility: Dealing with existing applications that do
      not understand the new extension.  Designers also have to make
      sure that new extensions do not break expected message delivery
      layer behavior.

   o  Forward compatibility: Making sure that the design will not
      introduce undue restrictions for future applications.  Future
      applications attempting to support this feature should not have to
      go through great lengths to implement any new extensions.

   o  Tradeoffs in signaling: Designers may have to choose between the
      use of optional AVPs piggybacked onto existing commands versus
      defining new commands and applications.  Optional AVPs are simpler
      to implement and may not need changes to existing applications;
      However, the drawback is that the timing of sending extension data
      will be tied to when the application would be sending a message.
      This has consequences if the application and the extensions have
      different timing requirements.  The use of commands and
      applications solves this issue but the tradeoff is the additional
      complexity of defining and deploying a new application.  It is
      left up to the designer to find a good balance among these
      tradeoffs based on the requirements of the extension.


   In practice, it is often the case that the generic extensions use
   optional AVPs because it's simple and not intrusive to the
   application that would carry it.  Peers that do not support the
   generic extensions need not understand nor recognize these optional
   AVPs.  However, it is recommended that the authors of the extension
   specify the context or usage of the optional AVPs.  As an example, in
   the case that the AVP can be used only by a specific set of
   applications then the specification must enumerate these applications
   and the scenarios when the optional AVPs will be used.  In the case
   where the optional AVPs can be carried by any application, it is
   should be sufficient to specify such a use case and perhaps provide
   specific examples of applications using them.

   In most cases, these optional AVPs piggybacked by applications would
   be defined as a Grouped AVP and it would encapsulate all the
   functionality of the generic extension.  In practice, it is not
   uncommon that the Grouped AVP will encapsulate an existing AVP that
   has previously been defined as mandatory ('M'-bit set) e.g., 3GPP IMS
   Cx / Dx interfaces ([2] and [3]).




Fajardo, et al.           Expires May 28, 2009                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines   November 2008


12.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not require actions by IANA.


13.  Security Considerations

   This document does provides guidelines and considerations for
   extending Diameter and Diameter applications.  It does not define nor
   address security related protocols or schemes.


14.  Contributors

   The content of this document was influenced by a design team created
   to revisit the Diameter extensibility rules.  The team consisting of
   the members listed below was formed in February 2008 and finished its
   work in June 2008.

   o  Avi Lior
   o  Glen Zorn
   o  Jari Arkko
   o  Lionel Morand
   o  Mark Jones
   o  Victor Fajardo
   o  Tolga Asveren
   o  Jouni Korhonen
   o  Glenn McGregor
   o  Hannes Tschofenig
   o  Dave Frascone


15.  Acknowledgments

   We greatly appreciate the insight provided by Diameter implementers
   who have highlighted the issues and concerns being addressed by this
   document.


16.  References

16.1.  Normative References

   [1]   Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn, "Diameter
         Base Protocol", draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-13 (work in
         progress), November 2008.

   [2]   3GPP, "IMS Cx and Dx interfaces : signalling flows and message



Fajardo, et al.           Expires May 28, 2009                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines   November 2008


         contents", 3GPP TS 29.228 Version 7.0.0 2006.

   [3]   3GPP, "IMS Cx and Dx interfaces based on the Diameter protocol;
         Protocol details", 3GPP TS 29.229 Version 7.0.0 2006.

   [4]   3GPP, "IMS Sh interface : signalling flows and message
         content", 3GPP TS 29.328 Version 6.8.0 2005.

   [5]   3GPP, "IMS Sh interface based on the Diameter protocol;
         Protocol details", 3GPP TS 29.329 Version 6.6.0 2005.

   [6]   Korhonen, J., Bournelle, J., Tschofenig, H., Perkins, C., and
         K. Chowdhury, "Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for Network Access
         Server to Diameter Server  Interaction",
         draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated-11 (work in progress),
         November 2008.

   [7]   Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., Arumaithurai, M., Jones, M., and
         A. Lior, "Quality of Service Attributes for Diameter",
         draft-ietf-dime-qos-attributes-08 (work in progress),
         October 2008.

   [8]   Hakala, H., Mattila, L., Koskinen, J-P., Stura, M., and J.
         Loughney, "Diameter Credit-Control Application", RFC 4006,
         August 2005.

   [9]   Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J. Arkko,
         "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003.

   [10]  Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., Bournelle, J., Giaretta, G., and
         M. Nakhjiri, "Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for Home Agent to
         Diameter Server  Interaction", draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-13
         (work in progress), October 2008.

   [11]  Sun, D., McCann, P., Tschofenig, H., Tsou, T., Doria, A., and
         G. Zorn, "Diameter Quality of Service Application",
         draft-ietf-dime-diameter-qos-06 (work in progress), July 2008.

16.2.  Informative References

   [12]  Calhoun, P., "Diameter Resource Management Extensions",
         draft-calhoun-diameter-res-mgmt-08.txt (work in progress),
         March 2001.

   [13]  Asveren, T., "Diameter Duplicate Detection Cons.",
         draft-asveren-dime-dupcons-00 (work in progress), August 2006.





Fajardo, et al.           Expires May 28, 2009                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines   November 2008


Authors' Addresses

   Victor Fajardo (editor)
   Toshiba America Research Inc.
   One Telcordia Drive, #1S222
   Piscataway, NJ  08854
   USA

   Email: vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com


   Tolga Asveren
   Sonus Network
   4400 Route 9 South
   Freehold, NJ  07728
   USA

   Email: tasveren@sonusnet.com


   Hannes Tschofenig
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   Linnoitustie 6
   Espoo  02600
   Finland

   Phone: +358 (50) 4871445
   Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net
   URI:   http://www.tschofenig.priv.at


   Glenn McGregor
   Alcatel-Lucent
   3461 Robin Ln Ste 1
   Cameron Park, CA  95682
   USA

   Email: glenn@aaa.lucent.com













Fajardo, et al.           Expires May 28, 2009                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines   November 2008


   John Loughney
   Nokia Research Center
   955 Page Mill Road
   Palo Alto, CA  94304
   US

   Phone: 1-650-283-8068
   Email: john.loughney@nokia.com











































Fajardo, et al.           Expires May 28, 2009                 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines   November 2008


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.











Fajardo, et al.           Expires May 28, 2009                 [Page 17]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/