Evaluation Of DIAMETER Against MIDCOM Requirements
draft-taylor-midcom-diameter-eval-01
Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Author | Tom Taylor | ||
Last updated | 2002-04-30 | ||
RFC stream | (None) | ||
Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
Formats | |||
Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | (None) | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
This document is submitted as part of the Midcom protocol selection process. It evaluates the suitability of the Diameter protocol as a transport for Midcom. The general conclusions are: . the Diameter architecture may be too heavy for the Midcom application, although this is a matter for discussion. It is clear in any event that much of the Diameter base is not needed; . a new application extension to Diameter would have to be defined to meet Midcom's requirements; . with these reservations, the protocol is a good fit to Midcom requirements. This version contains added details describing how to use Diameter to meet the requirements.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)