diameter extended naptr thursday, november 11, 2010 draft-ietf-dime-extended-naptr mark jones jouni...

5
Diameter Extended NAPTR Thursday, November 11, 2010 draft-ietf-dime-extended-naptr Mark Jones Jouni Korhonen IETF 79 Beijing, China

Upload: juliet-bishop

Post on 12-Jan-2016

218 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Diameter Extended NAPTR Thursday, November 11, 2010 draft-ietf-dime-extended-naptr Mark Jones Jouni Korhonen IETF 79 Beijing, China

Diameter Extended NAPTR

Thursday, November 11, 2010

draft-ietf-dime-extended-naptrMark Jones

Jouni KorhonenIETF 79

Beijing, China

Page 2: Diameter Extended NAPTR Thursday, November 11, 2010 draft-ietf-dime-extended-naptr Mark Jones Jouni Korhonen IETF 79 Beijing, China

I-D in a nutshell

The I-D specifies an extended RFC3403 NAPTR service field format that permits discovery of Diameter peers that support a specific Diameter application or applications: "AAA+AP" <appn-id>:<app-protocol>

Example: 'AAA+AP5:diameter.sctp’ Means that the Diameter node in the SRV record

supports the Diameter EAP Application ('5') and SCTP as the transport protocol.

Builds on S-NAPTR usage defined in RFC3588bis-21. NAPTR query procedure remains backwards compatible

with RFC3588.

Page 3: Diameter Extended NAPTR Thursday, November 11, 2010 draft-ietf-dime-extended-naptr Mark Jones Jouni Korhonen IETF 79 Beijing, China

I-D Changes Since IETF#78

Rev -03 was published on November 9th.

Addresses the comments received during WGLC. Added a problem statement to abstract/introduction. Added reference to RFC3958 to pickup S-NAPTR

terminology. Fixed a bunch of editorial nits (rewording/ grammar/

spelling).

Page 4: Diameter Extended NAPTR Thursday, November 11, 2010 draft-ietf-dime-extended-naptr Mark Jones Jouni Korhonen IETF 79 Beijing, China

Open Issue

Re-use of the existing S-NAPTR registry may deter non-IETF SDOs from using this mechanism. Current IANA policy is “Specification Required” but

specification MUST be an RFC of any category. Could we relax the requirement for an RFC? If not, what is the minimal process for a non-IETF

SDO to satisfy the RFC requirement?

Two reviews in WGLC Short, simple draft...this ain’t no 3588bis.

Page 5: Diameter Extended NAPTR Thursday, November 11, 2010 draft-ietf-dime-extended-naptr Mark Jones Jouni Korhonen IETF 79 Beijing, China

Feedback?

RFCs for

dummies