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://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
>
>
>