[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 27 28 RFC 7423

Diameter Maintanence and                                 V. Fajardo, Ed.
Extensions (DIME)
Internet-Draft                                             H. Tschofenig
Intended status: Informational                    Nokia Siemens Networks
Expires: September 8, 2010                                     L. Morand
                                                             Orange Labs
                                                           March 7, 2010


                Diameter Applications Design Guidelines
                draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide-11.txt

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
   not add, remove or change existing rules.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and 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 September 8, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.



Fajardo, et al.         Expires September 8, 2010               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines      March 2010


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Adding a new command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  Deleting a Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6.  Reusing Existing Commands  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     6.1.  Adding AVPs to a Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     6.2.  Deleting AVPs from a Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.  Reusing Existing AVPs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   8.  Rules for new Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     8.1.  Use of Application-Id in a Message . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     8.2.  Application Specific Session State Machine . . . . . . . . 14
   9.  End-to-End Applications Capabilities Exchange  . . . . . . . . 15
   10. Diameter Accounting Support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   11. Generic Diameter Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   12. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   13. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   14. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   15. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26















Fajardo, et al.         Expires September 8, 2010               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines      March 2010


1.  Introduction

   The Diameter Base protocol document defines rules on how one would
   extend Diameter (see Section 1.2 of [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]).  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
   [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] 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.




Fajardo, et al.         Expires September 8, 2010               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines      March 2010


2.  Terminology

   This document reuses the terminology used in
   [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis].















































Fajardo, et al.         Expires September 8, 2010               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines      March 2010


3.  Overview

   As it is currently interpreted and practiced, the Diameter Base
   protocol is a two-layer protocol.  The lower layer is mainly
   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
   [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]).  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
      [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] 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



Fajardo, et al.         Expires September 8, 2010               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines      March 2010


   Diameter Base protocol rules.


















































Fajardo, et al.         Expires September 8, 2010               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines      March 2010


4.  Adding a new command

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















Fajardo, et al.         Expires September 8, 2010               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines      March 2010


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.










































Fajardo, et al.         Expires September 8, 2010               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines      March 2010


6.  Reusing Existing Commands

   This section discusses rules in adding and/or deleting AVPs from an
   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 [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis], AVPs that are added
   to an existing command can be categorized into:


   o  Mandatory to understand AVPs.  As defined in
      [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis], 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.
   [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] 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?



Fajardo, et al.         Expires September 8, 2010               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines      March 2010


   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
   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.



Fajardo, et al.         Expires September 8, 2010              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines      March 2010


   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 September 8, 2010              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines      March 2010


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.








































Fajardo, et al.         Expires September 8, 2010              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines      March 2010


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
   ([TS29.228] and [TS29.229]), Sh ([TS29.328] and [TS29.329]) 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.

   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



Fajardo, et al.         Expires September 8, 2010              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines      March 2010


   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 [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] 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
   [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] 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.



































Fajardo, et al.         Expires September 8, 2010              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines      March 2010


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 [I-D.ietf-dime-mip6-integrated] and
   [I-D.ietf-dime-qos-attributes].

   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.


   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.

























Fajardo, et al.         Expires September 8, 2010              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines      March 2010


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 September 8, 2010              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines      March 2010


   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.











Fajardo, et al.         Expires September 8, 2010              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines      March 2010


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 [I-D.calhoun-diameter-res-mgmt]), improvements in duplicate
   detection scheme (see [I-D.asveren-dime-dupcons]), and piggybacking
   of QoS attributes (see [I-D.ietf-dime-qos-attributes]).

   Since generic extensions can cover many aspects of Diameter and
   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



Fajardo, et al.         Expires September 8, 2010              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines      March 2010


   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 ([TS29.228] and [TS29.229]).





































Fajardo, et al.         Expires September 8, 2010              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines      March 2010


12.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not require actions by IANA.
















































Fajardo, et al.         Expires September 8, 2010              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines      March 2010


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.














































Fajardo, et al.         Expires September 8, 2010              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines      March 2010


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

   We would like to thank Tolga Asveren, Glenn McGregor, and John
   Loughney for their contributions as co-authors to earlier versions of
   this document.


















Fajardo, et al.         Expires September 8, 2010              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines      March 2010


15.  Acknowledgments

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














































Fajardo, et al.         Expires September 8, 2010              [Page 23]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines      March 2010


16.  References

16.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-dime-diameter-qos]
              Sun, D., McCann, P., Tschofenig, H., ZOU), T., Doria, A.,
              and G. Zorn, "Diameter Quality of Service Application",
              draft-ietf-dime-diameter-qos-14 (work in progress),
              February 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-dime-mip6-integrated]
              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-12 (work in progress),
              January 2009.

   [I-D.ietf-dime-mip6-split]
              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-17 (work in progress),
              April 2009.

   [I-D.ietf-dime-qos-attributes]
              Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., Arumaithurai, M., Jones, M.,
              and A. Lior, "Traffic Classification and Quality of
              Service Attributes for Diameter",
              draft-ietf-dime-qos-attributes-15 (work in progress),
              December 2009.

   [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]
              Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
              "Diameter Base Protocol", draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-19
              (work in progress), September 2009.

   [RFC3588]  Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J.
              Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003.

   [RFC4006]  Hakala, H., Mattila, L., Koskinen, J-P., Stura, M., and J.
              Loughney, "Diameter Credit-Control Application", RFC 4006,
              August 2005.

   [TS29.228]
              3GPP, "IMS Cx and Dx interfaces : signalling flows and
              message contents", 3GPP TS 29.228 Version 7.0.0 2006.

   [TS29.229]



Fajardo, et al.         Expires September 8, 2010              [Page 24]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines      March 2010


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

   [TS29.328]
              3GPP, "IMS Sh interface : signalling flows and message
              content", 3GPP TS 29.328 Version 6.8.0 2005.

   [TS29.329]
              3GPP, "IMS Sh interface based on the Diameter protocol;
              Protocol details", 3GPP TS 29.329 Version 6.6.0 2005.

16.2.  Informative References

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

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




























Fajardo, et al.         Expires September 8, 2010              [Page 25]


Internet-Draft   Diameter Applications Design Guidelines      March 2010


Authors' Addresses

   Victor Fajardo (editor)


   Email: vf0213@gmail.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


   Lionel Morand
   Orange Labs


   Phone: +33 1 4529 6257
   Email: lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com


























Fajardo, et al.         Expires September 8, 2010              [Page 26]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/