User's Guide
Reference Manual
Release Notes
PDF
Top

Diameter
User's Guide
Version 1.4

Expand All
Contract All

Chapters

• Introduction
  • Top of chapter
• Usage
  • Top of chapter
• Examples
  • Top of chapter
• Standards Compliance
  • Top of chapter
  • RFC 6733
  • RFC 3539

4 Standards Compliance

Known points of questionable or non-compliance.

4.1  RFC 6733

• There is no support for DTLS over SCTP.

• There is no explicit support for peer discovery (section 5.2). It can possibly be implemented on top of diameter as is but this is probably something that diameter should do.

• The peer state machine's election process (section 5.6.4) isn't implemented as specified since it assumes knowledge of a peer's Origin-Host before sending it a CER. (The identity becoming known upon reception of CEA.) The possibility of configuring the peer's Origin-Host could be added, along with handling of the case that it sends something else, but for many applications this will just be unnecessary configuration of a value that it has no control over.

4.2  RFC 3539

RFC 3539 is more difficult to comply to since it discusses problems as much as it requires functionality but all the MUST's are covered, the watchdog state machine being the primary one. Of the optional functionality, load balancing is left to the diameter user (since it's the one deciding who to send to) and there is no Congestion Manager.