Re: [Dime] RFC 3588 - fixed positioned session-ID AVPs
Victor Fajardo <vf0213@gmail.com> Wed, 01 September 2010 14:15 UTC
Return-Path: <vf0213@gmail.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 DBFBC3A6893 for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 07:15:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 21PHvHfNukiv for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 07:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C52C3A67A5 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 07:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwj40 with SMTP id 40so8661wwj.13 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Sep 2010 07:16:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=cfCEg17gV6XUut1WOjzLSXg1BwU/+kP/qd/AKGBpX4w=; b=OU06+s15xkmPVFNe8yJmyUA7UI+MyQnIt9+uStNnk2vE7m7ct8c46i6mC6T1jzYRCQ JoGR7MqPBzHlF3uIiRUkwnk7GE0mP2O+i31x36drOdh6lzAPjbr46rjdcRL+NtmnnrNg eiISuSNL6GMpEdFy7CTj9T6d+i8JFErhdmoP8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=rfGw4qaVD4ioucc+xtNNTxtMFyY+RHg2Gz8/TLT92ngkb7bKvlyAOQiWAiZ8X8Z83m 39Jq72pfVcDaQux/Ch8H4cgCc3ND1d5d2ry/Y9z3+BG1TWWMgniVXRqdwWCHky5yniEQ cToKgj6ArVg3di7MJAROqPPPKjk0e+3eBO+Tg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.185.211 with SMTP id u61mr353531wem.12.1283350433580; Wed, 01 Sep 2010 07:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.58.130 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 07:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinzg32WTanHogxXrFJJk2rMuyGxjzO-Dhe=98jQ@mail.gmail.com>
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>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 10:13:53 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTikst3Uo+OzLxhF=0LtGGUOJ4J+3N8zXKkTnbi5F@mail.gmail.com>
From: Victor Fajardo <vf0213@gmail.com>
To: David Lehmann <dlehmann@ulticom.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016367fad89b7490f048f334e0a"
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 14:15:48 -0000
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://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