Re: [Dime] RFC 3588 - fixed positioned session-ID AVPs
"David Lehmann" <dlehmann@ulticom.com> Wed, 01 September 2010 14:38 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 064D93A6812 for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 07:38:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.451
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.451 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.147, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 le39ztLn-qGx for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 07:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bw.ulticom.com (bw.ulticom.com [208.255.120.43]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BE773A690E for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 07:38:29 -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 D68BB27FC5C09537; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:38:57 -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 o81Ecmlm008448; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:38:52 -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_01CB49E3.63677E92"
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 10:37:00 -0400
Message-ID: <A51D8ACD861B7E41BFC7FE5C64BE96481167B0FF@MTLEXVS01.ulticom.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikst3Uo+OzLxhF=0LtGGUOJ4J+3N8zXKkTnbi5F@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Dime] RFC 3588 - fixed positioned session-ID AVPs
Thread-Index: ActJ4ETL60Aqpbj2TqOZRviCW6O1vgAAiBdQ
References: <A51D8ACD861B7E41BFC7FE5C64BE96481167B0F1@MTLEXVS01.ulticom.com><009f01cb4913$e76b5b50$b64211f0$@net><A51D8ACD861B7E41BFC7FE5C64BE96481167B0F7@MTLEXVS01.ulticom.com><AANLkTi=GiPLzuAnLqwRe7sPGMJoRE+LTzBFdZgdCffnZ@mail.gmail.com><A51D8ACD861B7E41BFC7FE5C64BE96481167B0F9@MTLEXVS01.ulticom.com><AANLkTiku7LqpiaRmDoB8DPndLv6JNKz_NRR0VK7sAT1E@mail.gmail.com><A51D8ACD861B7E41BFC7FE5C64BE96481167B0FA@MTLEXVS01.ulticom.com><AANLkTinAXtekvdU7Z83bFrZkT818VSA2vXaLc69bCTre@mail.gmail.com><A51D8ACD861B7E41BFC7FE5C64BE96481167B0FB@MTLEXVS01.ulticom.com><AANLkTinVm7Cfh-Bzc=zLxaWg9h2BTqoEc8qs2DGcB1Mf@mail.gmail.com><A51D8ACD861B7E41BFC7FE5C64BE96481167B0FC@MTLEXVS01.ulticom.com><AANLkTinzg32WTanHogxXrFJJk2rMuyGxjzO-Dhe=98jQ@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikst3Uo+OzLxhF=0LtGGUOJ4J+3N8zXKkTnbi5F@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Lehmann <dlehmann@ulticom.com>
To: Victor Fajardo <vf0213@gmail.com>
Received-SPF: none
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] RFC 3588 - fixed positioned session-ID AVPs
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: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 14:38:44 -0000
Well, at least we found something that we can agree upon! J -- David Lehmann Ulticom, Inc. 856-787-2952 From: Victor Fajardo [mailto:vf0213@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 10:14 AM To: David Lehmann Cc: Glen Zorn; dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] RFC 3588 - fixed positioned session-ID AVPs Just to be clear in my prev email. I prefer not to change anything in bis. On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Victor Fajardo <vf0213@gmail.com> wrote: hmm actually I prefer not to change anything :) ... the current text is clear that the BNF defines everything. And that the original SHOULD is there as a clear recommendation On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 9:28 AM, David Lehmann <dlehmann@ulticom.com> wrote: Reword as necessary. The reason that a "SHOULD" is followed by a "MUST" is because that seems to be how diameter is defined, according to the previous posts. The diameter protocol says "SHOULD" as far as positioning, but the BNF may override the "SHOULD" with a "MUST". It seems you are agreeing that it is confusing. ;-) This is why clarification is needed. I think the wording that I provided is dead on, but as I stated, reword as necessary. -- David Lehmann Ulticom, Inc. 856-787-2952 From: Victor Fajardo [mailto:vf0213@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 9:13 AM To: David Lehmann Cc: Glen Zorn; dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] RFC 3588 - fixed positioned session-ID AVPs 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] <mailto:[mailto://dlehmann@ulticom.com%5d> 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] RFC 3588 - fixed positioned session-ID AVPs David Lehmann
- Re: [Dime] RFC 3588 - fixed positioned session-ID… Glen Zorn
- Re: [Dime] RFC 3588 - fixed positioned session-ID… David Lehmann
- Re: [Dime] RFC 3588 - fixed positioned session-ID… Victor Fajardo
- Re: [Dime] RFC 3588 - fixed positioned session-ID… David Lehmann
- Re: [Dime] RFC 3588 - fixed positioned session-ID… Victor Fajardo
- Re: [Dime] RFC 3588 - fixed positioned session-ID… David Lehmann
- Re: [Dime] RFC 3588 - fixed positioned session-ID… Victor Fajardo
- Re: [Dime] RFC 3588 - fixed positioned session-ID… Glen Zorn
- Re: [Dime] RFC 3588 - fixed positioned session-ID… Glen Zorn
- Re: [Dime] RFC 3588 - fixed positioned session-ID… David Lehmann
- Re: [Dime] RFC 3588 - fixed positioned session-ID… Victor Fajardo
- Re: [Dime] RFC 3588 - fixed positioned session-ID… Tina TSOU
- Re: [Dime] RFC 3588 - fixed positioned session-ID… David Lehmann
- Re: [Dime] RFC 3588 - fixed positioned session-ID… Victor Fajardo
- Re: [Dime] RFC 3588 - fixed positioned session-ID… Victor Fajardo
- Re: [Dime] RFC 3588 - fixed positioned session-ID… David Lehmann
- Re: [Dime] RFC 3588 - fixed positioned session-ID… Glen Zorn