Dear CN3 delegates
I hope you all have a safe trip back.
I am revising the lates stats of Gx an came across with the following
question for the Gx people. Although if my concerns are correct we may
experience the same problem across all of the others diameter interfaces we own,
that's why I am bringing this to your attention right away so we can decide if
there is a problem or not that need to be corrected.
The background for this is that Gx was intended to be DCC Application as defined inIETF, i.e. re-use the DCCA application id. If we go and look in the IETF draft for DCCA, we see that in the CCR/CCA for the exchange of capabilities only the Auth-Application-Id AVP appears and not the Vendor-Specific-Application-Id AVP as defined in Diameter BASE (grouped AVP containing vendor-id and Auth-Application-Id ). And this is the way it is actually done in Gx: aligned with DCCA
However having a closer look at this, the reason why this is so in IETF is because they only need to publish their own new applications without referring to vendor-id (they don't have vendor id, other 3rd parties such as 3gGPP). So after 3GPP finally decided that Gx was different enough to have its own application-id, we should have probably introduced the vendor-specific-application-id, so both the vendor-id (10415) and the Gx application id are mentioned together under this grouped AVP.
In fact in clause 6 it says
"Gx Messages are carried within the Diameter Application(s) described in the sub-clauses below. These Applications are defined as vendor specific Diameter applications, where the vendor is 3GPP. The vendor identifier assigned by IANA to
3GPP (http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers) is 10415.
In Section 6 of TS 29.210, it states "The TFP and the CRF shall advertise
the support of the 3GPP vendor
specific Diameter Application for the Gx
Application and/or the Gx over Gy Application by including the value of the
appropriate application identifier(s) in the Capabilities-Exchange-Request and
Capabilities-Exchange-Answer commands."
We don't have placeholders (i.e. AVPs) for the vendor-id=10415.
My feeling at this point is that we should:
A) remove the Auth-Application-Id AVP from command
level in CCR and others commands
B) introduce
the Vendor-Specific-Application-Id AVP in CCR and other commands, which wil
contain the vendo-id and the Auth-Application-Id AVP as definde in RFC
3588
Sorry for the long explanation but I think this is important. Please think about this in case we need to introduce corrections to our specs
Javier Gonzalez
UMTS Product Planning
Nortel
Networks
Tel +44.(0)1628 434123 (ESN 560
4123)
>> new domain:
ggfj@nortel.com