RFC 5224

Diameter Policy Processing Application

📅 published March 2008, from ietf

RFC 5224: Diameter Policy Processing Application 💖

okay bestie, let's do the title block tea ☕ This is RFC 5224, written by Michael Brenner (listed as M. Brenner) from Alcatel-Lucent 🦋 It's marked Informational and dated March 2008 ✨ The document doesn't say it obsoletes or updates anything, so no drama there 💅

Status of This Memo 📜

This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. 🌸

Abstract 🌸

okay so this doc says we need a brand new IANA Diameter Command Code 🔥 for a vendor-specific new application that invokes Policy Processing (Policy Evaluation, or Evaluation and Enforcement) 💜 It's needed because it's one way to implement the Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) Policy Evaluation, Enforcement and Management (PEEM) enabler, specifically for the PEM-1 interface, which sends a request and gets a response for Policy Processing 🎀

Table of Contents 📖

1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3.  Diameter Policy Processing Application  . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
  5.1.  Command Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
  5.2.  AVP Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
  5.3.  Application Identifier  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
  7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
  7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1. Introduction ✨

okay bestie, this doc sums up how Diameter codes get used in a brand new realization of a spec for invoking policy processing 🦋 IANA already assigned a new Command Code, and the doc covers all the newly defined Diameter stuff: a Command Code, an AVP, and a vendor-specific application id 💅 Combined with the Diameter Base protocol, this application's spec satisfies the Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) Policy Evaluation, Enforcement, and Management (PEEM) requirements for sending a request for policy processing and getting back a response with the result 😭 For the normative Diameter details, check [PEM-1-TS] 🫶 The PEEM requirements live in [PEEM-RD], and the PEEM Architecture lives in [PEEM-AD] 📚

The Diameter version of this application assumes you're using the Diameter Base protocol, as per RFC 3588, and it only extends that for this one specific application 🎀 That extension uses a vendor-id (PEN), a vendor-specific application ID, a new Command Code (314), and a new AVP defined in the vendor-specific namespace 💜 The policy inputs get passed through that new AVP, and the policy results get passed through a combo of that same AVP plus the Experimental-Result AVP 🔥

2. Terminology 🧚

The base Diameter spec (Section 1.4 of [RFC3588]) defines most of the terms used here 💖 On top of that, the terms and acronyms defined in [PEM-1-TS] are used in this document too 🌈

3. Diameter Policy Processing Application 🍓

A detailed description of the Diameter Policy Processing Application is in Section 5.4.1 of the Policy Evaluation, Enforcement and Management Callable Interface (PEM-1) Technical Specification [PEM-1-TS] 📖✨

4. Security Considerations 🔒

💀 Security note, bestie, this part is serious. This document describes the Diameter Policy Processing Application. It builds on the Diameter Base protocol, and the same security considerations described in RFC 3588 [RFC3588] apply to this document. No further extensions are required beyond the security mechanisms offered by RFC 3588.

5. IANA Considerations 📋

This section gives guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) about registering values for the Diameter protocol, following BCP 26 [RFC2434] 🌸

This document defines values in the namespaces that were created and defined in the Diameter Base [RFC3588]. The IANA Considerations section of that doc has the assignment criteria 👑 Values assigned in this document, or by future IANA action, must be coordinated within this shared namespace 🫶

5.1. Command Codes 🎀

This specification assigns the value 314 from the Command Code namespace defined in [RFC3588]. Check out Section 5.4.1.3.1 of [PEM-1-TS] to see how the command code gets used 💅

IANA made the following assignment in the "Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters" registry, in the sub-registry "Command Codes" 🦋

Code Value          Name                            Reference
--------------      ------------------------------- ---------
314                 PDR / PDA                       [RFC5224]

5.2. AVP Codes 💜

This specification uses the value 1 for the Policy-Data AVP, in the OMA Vendor-ID (PEN) AVP namespace. See Section 5.4.1.3.3 of [PEM-1-TS] for how this specification assigns that namespace ✨

5.3. Application Identifier 🔥

This specification uses the value 16777243 in the Application Identifier namespace, as registered in IANA for the Policy Processing Application. See Section 5.4.1.3 of [PEM-1-TS] for more info 🌈

6. Acknowledgements 💖

The author would like to thank Dan Romascanu and Hannes Tschofenig for their help and support 🫶

Finally, the author would like to thank Alcatel-Lucent, since most of the effort on this document happened while he was working there 🎀

7. References 📚

7.1. Normative References 👑

[PEM-1-TS]  Open Mobile Alliance, "Policy Evaluation, Enforcement and
            Management Callable Interface (PEM-1) Technical
            Specification, Draft Version 1.0, available at http://
            www.openmobilealliance.org/ftp/Public_documents/ARCH/
            Permanent_documents/
            OMA-TS-PEEM_PEM1-V1_0-20080325-D.zip", December 2007.

[RFC3588]   Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J.
            Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588,
            September 2003.

7.2. Informative References 🧚

[PEEM-AD]   Open Mobile Alliance, "Policy Evaluation, Enforcement and
            Management Architecture, Draft Version 1.0, available at
            http://www.openmobilealliance.org/ftp/Public_documents/
            ARCH/Permanent_documents/
            OMA-AD-Policy_Evaluation_Enforcement_Management-V1_0_0-
            20060625-D.zip", June 2006.

[PEEM-RD]   Open Mobile Alliance, "Policy Evaluation, Enforcement and
            Management Requirements, Candidate Version 1.0, 12
            January 2005, available at http://
            www.openmobilealliance.org/ftp/Public_documents/ARCH/
            permanent_documents/
            OMA-RD-Policy_Evaluation_Enforcement_Management-V1_0-
            20050112-C.zip", November 2005.

[RFC2434]   Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
            IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
            October 1998.

Author's Address 🦋

Michael Brenner
Alcatel-Lucent
600-700 Mountain Avenue, 2D-148
Murray Hill, NJ  07974-0636
USA

Phone: +1 908-582-8753
EMail: mrbrenner@alcatel-lucent.com

Full Copyright Statement ⭐

This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions in BCP 78. Except as set forth there, the authors keep all their rights 💅

This document and the info in it are provided on an "AS IS" basis. THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 😭

Intellectual Property 🔥

The IETF takes no position on the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to apply to the technology in this document, or on whether any license under those rights might be available. It also doesn't claim to have made any independent effort to find such rights. Info about how rights work for RFC documents is in BCP 78 and BCP 79 📖

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat, any assurances of licenses to be made available, and the results of any attempt to get a general license or permission for implementers or users of this spec can be found in the IETF's online IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr 🌐

The IETF invites any interested party to tell it about any copyrights, patents, patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology needed to implement this standard. Send that info to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org 💖

📦 where this page comes from

ietf: rfc5224 2008-03
💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on 2026-10-17: a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms