Re: [Dime] Diameter Group: Type?

I would encourage 3588bis authors to look into this specific place. I also think it is an error that needs to be fixed.

- Jouni

On Jan 28, 2011, at 2:13 PM, Mark Jones wrote:

> Hi Erez, 
> 
> Will you be raising an issue on 3588bis so the authors can fix this bug?
> 
> Thanks
> Mark
> 
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Erez Nassimi <erez.nassimi@amdocs.com> wrote:
> Guys,
> 
>  
> Thank you for the comments. I think everyone agrees there is a bug in RFC. But this can lead us to 2 different interpretations:
> 1.  Based on “an unrecognized bit SHOULD be considered an error”, we could assume that “subsequent Diameter applications MAY define additional bits within the AVP Header”, should have read “subsequent Diameter versions”.
> 2.  But the words are very clear and as of now it says “subsequent Diameter applications”.
> In any case, my point was rather conceptual than technical. Defining a Grouped AVP as a type, is similar to classifying C++ classes in the same category as simple types as int, char, etc. There is a difference after all. I found it important enough to differentiate between them with a “G” bit.
> 
>  
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime