[Dime] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6733 (4808)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 22 September 2016 09:01 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 615BA12DA4B for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 02:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.918
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OYkT2NJ5JraW for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 02:01:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DB9812DA9B for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 02:01:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 502D3B81064; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 02:01:55 -0700 (PDT)
To: vf0213@gmail.com, jari.arkko@ericsson.com, john.loughney@nokia.com, glenzorn@gmail.com, bclaise@cisco.com, joelja@bogus.com, jouni.nospam@gmail.com, lionel.morand@orange.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20160922090155.502D3B81064@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 02:01:55 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/52lwxYlbu19CzwaZWbNVnqJqoX8>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 08:14:21 -0700
Cc: zbigniew.rapnicki@computaris.com, dime@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: [Dime] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6733 (4808)
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dime/>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:01:59 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6733,
"Diameter Base Protocol".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6733&eid=4808

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Zbigniew Rapnicki <zbigniew.rapnicki@computaris.com>

Section: 1.1.3

Original Text
-------------
This document obsoletes RFC 3588 but is fully backward compatible
   with that document.

Corrected Text
--------------
This document obsoletes RFC 3588.

Notes
-----
When comparing the BNF for the answer messages CEA, DPA, DWA, RAA, STA and ASA it can be seen that FAILED-AVP avp is no longer marked with the * which means it can be present only once in the diameter message.
Previous specification (rfc3588) defines multiple FAILED-AVP avp usage in a single diameter message.
Similar case is for Vendor-Specific-Application-Id AVP definition. 
Previous specification allows multiple usage of Vendor-Id avp in a single message while the new specification defines it as a single mandatory AVP:
rfc3588:
<Vendor-Specific-Application-Id> ::= < AVP Header: 260 >
                                     1* [ Vendor-Id ]
                                     0*1{ Auth-Application-Id }
                                     0*1{ Acct-Application-Id }

rfc6733:
<Vendor-Specific-Application-Id> ::= < AVP Header: 260 >
                                           { Vendor-Id }
                                           [ Auth-Application-Id ]
                                           [ Acct-Application-Id ]
										   
How this facts applies to the sentence about fully backward compatibility in the section 1.1.3?

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC6733 (draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-33)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Diameter Base Protocol
Publication Date    : October 2012
Author(s)           : V. Fajardo, Ed., J. Arkko, J. Loughney, G. Zorn, Ed.
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Diameter Maintenance and Extensions
Area                : Operations and Management
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG