[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Issue 290: RFC 4005bis Dependency

Issue 290: 4005bis Dependency
Submitter name: Bernard Aboba
Submitter email address: bernard_aboba@hotmail.com
Date first submitted:  December 10, 2008
Reference:   http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-mitton-diameter-radius-vsas-01.txt
Document: EXTATTR
Comment type: T
Priority: S 
Section:  7
Rationale/Explanation of issue:
 
Section 7 of this document contains the following text on Diameter Considerations:
   Since the Extended Attributes are encoded as Vendor-Specific RADIUS
   Attributes (see [IANA]), no special handling is required by Diameter
   [RFC3588] entities; see [RFC4005] for details on the Diameter
   treatment of RADIUS VSAs.
Unfortunately, this text is wrong.  RFC 4005 does not in fact describe how to translate RADIUS Extended Attributes to Diameter.
RFC 4005 Section 9 defines the RADIUS/Diameter gateway.   Unfortunately, Section 9.6 assumes that RADIUS VSAs follow the format recommended in RFC 2865, Section 5.26.  As noted in Section 9.6.2:
   The Diameter AVP will consist of the following fields:

      Diameter Flags: V=1, M=0, P=0
      Diameter Vendor code = RADIUS VSA Vendor code
      Diameter AVP code = RADIUS VSA Vendor type code
      Diameter AVP length = length of AVP (header + data)
      Diameter Data = "" VSA vendor data

   Note that the VSAs are considered optional by RADIUS rules, and this
   specification does not set the Mandatory flag.  If an implementor
   desires a VSA be made mandatory because it represents a required
   service policy, the RADIUS gateway should have a process to set the
   bit on the Diameter side.

   If the RADIUS receiving code knows of vendor specific field
   interpretations for the specific vendor, it may employ them to parse
   an extended AVP code or data length.  Otherwise the recommended
   standard fields will be used.

   Nested Multiple vendor data fields MUST be expanded into multiple
   Diameter AVPs.

Since the RADIUS Extended Attribute format does not conform to the recommended RADIUS VSA format in RFC 2865, RFC 4005 Section 9.6.2 does not apply.  As a result, an alternative mechanism for translating RADIUS Extended Attributes to Diameter needs to be defined (RFC 4005bis).  The RADIUS Extended Attributes document has a normative dependency on this document (which probably should be handled in the DIME WG).