Re: [Dime] clarification of message length
"David Lehmann" <dlehmann@ulticom.com> Fri, 16 July 2010 14:15 UTC
Return-Path: <dlehmann@ulticom.com>
X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB4A33A6952 for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 07:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.739
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.739 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RBH+p7NXlEXu for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 07:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bw.ulticom.com (bw.ulticom.com [208.255.120.43]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C154A3A68CB for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 07:15:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from colby.ulticom.com (colby.ulticom.com [192.73.206.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bw.ulticom.com (BorderWare Security Platform) with ESMTP id 630AB06F8DC30496 for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:15:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MTLEXVS01.ulticom.com (mtlex01.ulticom.com [172.16.40.5]) by colby.ulticom.com (8.13.4/8.12.10) with ESMTP id o6GEFdfv007125 for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:15:41 -0400 (EDT)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CB24F1.529641FC"
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:15:20 -0400
Message-ID: <A51D8ACD861B7E41BFC7FE5C64BE96481167AFBB@MTLEXVS01.ulticom.com>
In-Reply-To: <A51D8ACD861B7E41BFC7FE5C64BE96481167AFB0@MTLEXVS01.ulticom.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Dime] clarification of message length
Thread-Index: AcsjaSU8EQPbSoWFSkGRJH8C9GcLLgBh37cw
References: <A51D8ACD861B7E41BFC7FE5C64BE96481167AFB0@MTLEXVS01.ulticom.com>
From: David Lehmann <dlehmann@ulticom.com>
To: dime@ietf.org
Received-SPF: none
Subject: Re: [Dime] clarification of message length
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:15:35 -0000
No comments? I thought the response would be quick for this question. Maybe everybody is too busy packing for Maastricht. J -- David Lehmann Ulticom, Inc. 856-787-2952 From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Lehmann Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 11:29 AM To: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] clarification of message length The RFC states the following for AVPs in section 4. "The length of the padding is not reflected in the AVP Length field." In section 4.2, it states: "Thus the AVP length field of an AVP of type Grouped is always a multiple of 4." These statements are clear for the AVP lengths. However, the length of the message is not so clear. Section 3 states: "The Message Length field is three octets and indicates the length of the Diameter message including the header fields." My question is: Is the message length always a multiple of 4, as is the case for grouped AVPs? If so, should section 3 provide a clear statement to that fact? e.g. "The Message Length field is three octets and indicates the length of the Diameter message including the header fields and the padded AVPs. Thus the message length field is always a multiple of 4." -David
- [Dime] clarification of message length David Lehmann
- Re: [Dime] clarification of message length David Lehmann
- Re: [Dime] clarification of message length jouni korhonen
- Re: [Dime] clarification of message length David Lehmann