Re: [Dime] Diameter Group: Type?

[Erez Nassimi <[e-mail]>]

Hi Avi & Sebastian - and thank you David for the support :-)

A few comments and clarifications:


1.       I don't think it's too late to add a "G"rouped bit in flags. Adding a "G" bit, should not revoke / replace Groups as type. It could be an additional feature.

2.       By saying "Group may be basic", I mean it may be a basic concept, but not a basic type.

3.       Syntax parsing the inside level of AVP's might be very useful, when there is a need to filter out irrelevant / incorrect messages as quick as possible.

4.       I think you would agree with me, that when syntax parsing a Diameter message (for example to verify validity of the message), it would be faster to identify a Group, without accessing any other data structure. That's what I mean by performance improvement.

5.       It's clear that when reaching a semantic analysis phase of the Diameter message, one needs ALL necessary info. Group or not Group, this is just a small part of the info in that phase.

6.       In any case, an additional "G" bit cannot harm anything; since in the worst case the Group type info still exists. So the "G" bit can be ignored.

7.       Also "calculating" the "G" bit when creating a message should not be a burden, since the info has to be there anyway.

I hope I'm more clear now.

Regards,
Erez Nassimi

This message and the information contained herein is proprietary and confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement,
you may review at http://www.amdocs.com/email_disclaimer.asp