| Internet-Draft | draft-elkins-ippm-pdmv2-reg | June 2025 |
| Elkins, et al. | Expires 7 December 2025 | [Page] |
This document specifies a registration protocol for use with Performance and Diagnostic Metrics version 2 (PDMv2). This registration process enables endpoints to communicate supported policies and capabilities in advance of measurement sessions, simplifying setup and enhancing security. The protocol defines a set of commands, responses, and message formats, and proposes integration with the Diameter Base Protocol (RFC 6733) as the transport and authentication mechanism.¶
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.¶
The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://ameyand.github.io/PDMv2-Registration/draft-elkins-ippm-pdmv2-reg.html. Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-elkins-ippm-pdmv2-reg/.¶
Discussion of this document takes place on the IP Performance Measurement mailing list (mailto:ippm@ietf.org), which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/. Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm/.¶
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/ameyand/PDMv2-Registration.¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶
This Internet-Draft will expire on 7 December 2025.¶
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) defined in [RFC8250] allow for enhanced diagnostics of packet delay and network behavior. PDMv2 builds upon this by requiring prior registration of participating endpoints to negotiate policies, authentication, and encryption modes.¶
A robust registration mechanism allows Clients, Servers, and Analyzers to declare their role, supported cipher suites, and address ranges. This draft defines such a protocol using Diameter as the transport, given its extensibility and robust AAA Capabilities.¶
Diameter [RFC6733] defines a framework for AAA services, and is extensible for different applications through extensions. Given the requirement of PDMv2 registration protocol, the use of a standard-based AAA system seems to be logical.¶
RFC6733 defines various entities that can be mapped to the PDMv2 entities (client, server, analyzer, AS). In the Diameter terminology, the AS could be mapped to a “Proxy Agent”, which can enforce policy rules, e.g., preventing the clients from requesting a connection to a server.¶
All the other entities can be configured as “Peers”, with specific application TLVs describing their operations.¶
Note: The use of Diameter in the PDMv2 context will require the definition of an “application” specific to PDMv2, specific AVP, and message formats.¶
The decision to use Diameter will also need to be validated through a PoC.¶
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
TODO Security¶
This document has no IANA actions.¶
TODO acknowledge.¶