[Dime] clarification of message length

"David Lehmann" <dlehmann@ulticom.com> Wed, 14 July 2010 15:28 UTC

Return-Path: <dlehmann@ulticom.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 48D083A6852 for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.739
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.739 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, 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 lDubWSp0M51A for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bw.ulticom.com (bw.ulticom.com [208.255.120.43]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84DB63A6803 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from colby.ulticom.com (colby.ulticom.com [192.73.206.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bw.ulticom.com (BorderWare Security Platform) with ESMTP id F0DAA06C01E0E8EE for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:29:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MTLEXVS01.ulticom.com (mtlex01.ulticom.com [172.16.40.5]) by colby.ulticom.com (8.13.4/8.12.10) with ESMTP id o6EFT3t4008366 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:29:03 -0400 (EDT)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CB2369.4A617BA1"
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:29:03 -0400
Message-ID: <A51D8ACD861B7E41BFC7FE5C64BE96481167AFB0@MTLEXVS01.ulticom.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: clarification of message length
Thread-Index: AcsjaSU8EQPbSoWFSkGRJH8C9GcLLg==
From: David Lehmann <dlehmann@ulticom.com>
To: dime@ietf.org
Received-SPF: none
Subject: [Dime] clarification of message length
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, 14 Jul 2010 15:28:59 -0000

The RFC states the following for AVPs in section 4.

"The length of the padding is not reflected in the AVP Length field."

 

In section 4.2, it states:

"Thus the AVP length field of an AVP of type Grouped is always a
multiple of 4."
 
These statements are clear for the AVP lengths.  However, the length of
the message is not so clear.  Section 3 states:
"The Message Length field is three octets and indicates the length of
the Diameter message including the header fields."
 

My question is:  Is the message length always a multiple of 4, as is the
case for grouped AVPs?  If so, should section 3 provide a clear
statement to that fact?

e.g. "The Message Length field is three octets and indicates the length
of the Diameter message including the header fields and the padded AVPs.
Thus the message length field is always a multiple of 4."

 

-David