Re: [Dime] RFC 3588 - fixed positioned session-ID AVPs

Fully agree with Victor for the previous email.

B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/index.html

On Sep 1, 2010, at 9:12 PM, Victor Fajardo wrote:

> Its good to have some clarity, though the statement below probably  
> needs some re-org since SHOULD is followed with a MUST and theres a  
> conditional 'may' in between. Anyway, the statement maybe redundant  
> since each BNF already tells you where the session-id can be found ..
>
> my 2 cents.
>
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:55 AM, David Lehmann <dlehmann@ulticom.com>  
> wrote:
> OK, BNF rules.    IMHO, this should be noted or clarified in section  
> 8.8. e.g.
>
> “When present, the Session-Id SHOULD appear immediately following  
> the Diameter Header. Further, the message BNF may mandate that the  
> Session-Id MUST be positioned immediately following the message  
> header.  Indeed, all messages defined in this RFC require such a  
> positioning. (see Section 3)”
>
>
> --
>
> David Lehmann
>
> Ulticom, Inc.
>
> 856-787-2952
>
>
> From: Victor Fajardo [mailto:vf0213@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 4:25 PM
>
>
> To: David Lehmann
> Cc: Glen Zorn; dime@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Dime] RFC 3588 - fixed positioned session-ID AVPs
>
>
>
> yes. the BNF sets the positioning/sequencing rules. it's a common  
> practice in BNFs to place session-id near the head to optimize msg  
> processing .. etc.
>
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 3:22 PM, David Lehmann  
> <dlehmann@ulticom.com> wrote:
>
> So you are stating that the Diameter protocol itself does NOT  
> require all session-ID AVPs to follow immediately after the message  
> header, but a message’s BNF may require it?
>
>
> --
>
> David Lehmann
>
> Ulticom, Inc.
>
> 856-787-2952
>
>
> From: Victor Fajardo [mailto:vf0213@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 2:21 PM
>
>
> To: David Lehmann
> Cc: Glen Zorn; dime@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Dime] RFC 3588 - fixed positioned session-ID AVPs
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:54 PM, David Lehmann  
> <dlehmann@ulticom.com> wrote:
>
> The existing text in 8.8 is contradicting the BNF.
>
>
>
> Which BNF though ? There maybe apps beyond 3588 that may not  
> necessarily put the session-id after the header in their BNF's. In  
> that regard, the existing text is not contradictory but is meant to  
> be generalized specially because it describes an AVP and is agnostic  
> to any BNF.
>
>
> my two cents,
>
> victor
>
>
>
> I am suggesting text that agrees and supports the BNF.
>
>
> If you don’t want to modify the text to agree with the BNF, then I  
> suggest removing the existing text which contradicts it.
>
>
> --
>
> David Lehmann
>
> Ulticom, Inc.
>
> 856-787-2952
>
>
> From: Victor Fajardo [mailto:vf0213@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 11:52 AM
> To: David Lehmann
> Cc: Glen Zorn; dime@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Dime] RFC 3588 - fixed positioned session-ID AVPs
>
>
> Hi David,
>
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:37 AM, David Lehmann  
> <dlehmann@ulticom.com> wrote:
>
> Glen,
>
>
> That is not what the spec says.  At least, the wording is not clear  
> and, IMHO, is misleading.  In which “some message” can the session- 
> id AVP be in any position?
>
>
> It seems to me that the wording in section 8.8 should be:  “When  
> present, the Session-Id MUST appear immediately following the  
> Diameter Header (see Section 3).”
>
>
> As Glen has mentioned, the BNF dictates the positioning of the AVP.  
> If you add this text you are adding new rules beyond the BNF.
>
>
> regards,
>
> victor
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> David Lehmann
>
> Ulticom, Inc.
>
> 856-787-2952
>
>
> From: Glen Zorn [mailto:gwz@net-zen.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 9:54 AM
> To: David Lehmann
> Cc: dime@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Dime] RFC 3588 - fixed positioned session-ID AVPs
>
>
> David Lehmann [mailto://dlehmann@ulticom.com] writes:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello,
> Hello.
> In RFC 3588 (and 3588bis), messages with session IDs are defined  
> with the session ID AVPs with a fixed position which is immediately  
> following the header. (e.g. section 8.3.1)
> Yes.
> However, this is in contradiction with section 8.8 which states,  
> “When present, the Session-Id SHOULD appear immediately following  
> the Diameter Header (see Section 3).”
> No.
> By using “SHOULD”, the spec is stating that the session-ID AVP could  
> be in any position in the message.
> No, it is stating that the AVP could be in any position in some  
> message.  The syntax of the existing messages in RFC 3588 is defined  
> by the associated BNF and in those messages the Session-Id AVP must  
> immediately follow the Diameter header.
>
>
>
> Hope this helps.
>
>
>  ~gwz
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime