File formats:

Status:

PROPOSED STANDARD

Obsoleted by:

RFC 6733

Updates:

RFC 3588

Authors:

D. Romascanu
H. Tschofenig

Stream:

IETF

Source:

dime (ops)

Cite this RFC: TXT  |  XML  |   BibTeX

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC5719

Discuss this RFC: Send questions or comments to the mailing list dime@ietf.org

Other actions: Submit Errata  |  Find IPR Disclosures from the IETF  |  View History of RFC 5719

Abstract

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. RFC 3588 illustrates the conditions that lead to the need to define a new Diameter application or a new command code. Depending on the scope of the Diameter extension, IETF actions are necessary. Although defining new Diameter applications does not require IETF consensus, defining new Diameter commands requires IETF consensus per RFC 3588. This has led to questionable design decisions by other Standards Development Organizations, which chose to define new applications on existing commands -- rather than asking for assignment of new command codes -- for the pure purpose of avoiding bringing their specifications to the IETF. In some cases, interoperability problems were an effect of the poor design caused by overloading existing commands.

This document aligns the extensibility rules of the Diameter application with the Diameter commands, offering ways to delegate work on Diameter to other SDOs to extend Diameter in a way that does not lead to poor design choices. [STANDARDS-TRACK]

For the definition of Status, see RFC 2026.

For the definition of Stream, see RFC 8729.