IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] RFC 3588 - fixed positioned session-ID AVPs

"Glen Zorn" <gwz@net-zen.net> Tue, 31 August 2010 13:53 UTC

Return-Path: <gwz@net-zen.net>
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 89CF03A693F for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:53:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.111
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.111 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.487, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 KRuLvXpiyi1A for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpauth19.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpauth19.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.165.30]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 712763A690E for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 23101 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2010 13:53:59 -0000
Received: from unknown (124.157.141.122) by smtpauth19.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.30) with ESMTP; 31 Aug 2010 13:53:58 -0000
From: Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net>
To: 'David Lehmann' <dlehmann@ulticom.com>
References: <A51D8ACD861B7E41BFC7FE5C64BE96481167B0F1@MTLEXVS01.ulticom.com>
In-Reply-To: <A51D8ACD861B7E41BFC7FE5C64BE96481167B0F1@MTLEXVS01.ulticom.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 20:53:30 +0700
Organization: Network Zen
Message-ID: <009f01cb4913$e76b5b50$b64211f0$@net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00A0_01CB494E.93CA3350"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: ActJDhHpu5bXx/dWT/OYD3e13pPP3QABIG/w
Content-Language: en-us
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: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:53:37 -0000

David Lehmann  <mailto:[mailto://dlehmann@ulticom.com%5d>
[mailto://dlehmann@ulticom.com] 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email