%also; ]>
2011 2012 Ericsson AB. All Rights Reserved. The contents of this file are subject to the Erlang Public License, Version 1.1, (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You should have received a copy of the Erlang Public License along with this software. If not, it can be retrieved online at http://www.erlang.org/. Software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" basis, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language governing rights and limitations under the License. Standards Compliance diameter_soc.xml

Known points of questionable or non-compliance.

&the_rfc;

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.
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.