[Dime] Fwd: Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4006 (3329)

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 05 September 2012 07:42 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A602F21F8441 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 00:42:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.531
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.467, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_38=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U5beZVFd1A1Y for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 00:42:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0408221F8550 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 00:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q857g5To009371; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 09:42:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.60.67.91] (ams-bclaise-89110.cisco.com [10.60.67.91]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q857g415002001; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 09:42:04 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <5047024C.5070806@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 09:42:04 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120824 Thunderbird/15.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dime mailing list <dime@ietf.org>
References: <CADUSUHPQYQqW5J5kE+-AiZJ8sTM2nYtMMhvLW++YP=y-zMoRJA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADUSUHPQYQqW5J5kE+-AiZJ8sTM2nYtMMhvLW++YP=y-zMoRJA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <CADUSUHPQYQqW5J5kE+-AiZJ8sTM2nYtMMhvLW++YP=y-zMoRJA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020306080509020904020402"
Cc: xkiranj.1980@gmail.com
Subject: [Dime] Fwd: Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4006 (3329)
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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, 05 Sep 2012 07:42:17 -0000

Dear all,

This errata has been submitted.
While this looks right me, I always prefer to have a confirmation from 
the experts...

Regards, Benoit.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4006 (3329)
Date: 	Thu, 23 Aug 2012 12:00:03 +0200
From: 	Kiran Jadhav <xkiranj.1980@gmail.com>
To: 	RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
CC: 	Harri.Hakala@ericsson.com, Leena.Mattila@ericsson.com, 
juha-pekka.koskinen@nokia.com, marco.stura@nokia.com, 
John.Loughney@nokia.com, rbonica@juniper.net, bclaise@cisco.com, 
Bernard_Aboba@hotmail.com, david@mitton.com



Hello All,

I have reported an Editorial Errata for RFC4006.

This small editorial errata in the RFC4006 is causing issues in some 
call scenarios where the end user is given an option by the Service 
Provider to replenish his credit if it is found at the start of a call 
that the end-user's account balance is zero/insufficient. This is 
basically due to mis-interpretation of the sentence in the RFC by 
different vendors.

Please have a look at the suggested change which will help a common 
implementation of the behavior across all vendors.

Best Regards,
Kiran Jadhav

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:13 AM, RFC Errata System 
<rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>> wrote:


    The following errata report has been submitted for RFC4006,
    "Diameter Credit-Control Application".

    --------------------------------------
    You may review the report below and at:
    http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4006&eid=3329

    --------------------------------------
    Type: Editorial
    Reported by: Kiran Jadhav <xkiranj.1980@gmail.com
    <mailto:xkiranj.1980@gmail.com>>

    Section: 5.6.2

    Original Text
    -------------
    " Note that the credit-control server may already have initiated the
    above-described process for the first interrogation. However, the
    user's account might be empty when this first interrogation is
    performed. In this case, the subscriber can be offered a chance to
    replenish the account and continue the service. The credit-control
    client receives a Credit-Control-Answer or service specific
    authorization answer with the Final-Unit-Indication and Validity-Time
    AVPs but no Granted-Service-Unit. It immediately starts the graceful
    service termination without sending any message to the server. An
    example of this case is illustrated in Appendix A."

    Corrected Text
    --------------
    " Note that the credit-control server may already have initiated the
    above-described process for the first interrogation. However, the
    user's account might be empty when this first interrogation is
    performed. In this case, the subscriber can be offered a chance to
    replenish the account and continue the service. The credit-control
    client receives a Credit-Control-Answer or service specific
    authorization answer with the Final-Unit-Indication and Validity-Time
    AVPs but no Granted-Service-Unit AVP. It immediately starts the graceful
    service termination without sending any message to the server. An
    example of this case is illustrated in Appendix A."

    Notes
    -----
    In the sentence "The credit-control
    client receives a Credit-Control-Answer or service specific
    authorization answer with the Final-Unit-Indication and Validity-Time
    AVPs but no Granted-Service-Unit." it is important that we add the
    letters "AVP" after Granted-Service-Units as it is not clear whether
    the sentence refers to "Not sending Granted-Service-Unit AVP at all"
    or "sending GSU=0 (Granted-Service-Unit AVP with value 0".

    Different OCS vendors interpret the sentence above in a different
    way, some do not send the Granted-Service-Unit AVP at all, while
    some others send the Granted_Service-Unit=0. And this causes problem
    in the call scenario where FUI+Redirect is sent together with GSU=0.
    This causes the call to enter a loop and terminate with an error.

    Instructions:
    -------------
    This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
    use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
    rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
    can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.

    --------------------------------------
    RFC4006 (draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-cc-06)
    --------------------------------------
    Title               : Diameter Credit-Control Application
    Publication Date    : August 2005
    Author(s)           : H. Hakala, L. Mattila, J-P. Koskinen, M.
    Stura, J. Loughney
    Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
    Source              : Authentication, Authorization and Accounting
    Area                : Operations and Management
    Stream              : IETF
    Verifying Party     : IESG