Re: [Dime] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6733 (4473)

[Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]>]

(trimming the TO: and CC: lists)

Quick comment on the proposed resolution. I think it is wrong since the 
text in 6.1.4 concerning Destination-Host is in the context of the 
request message i.e. there is no Destination-Host AVP present in the 
request. The proposed resolution now makes it into a context of the peer 
table content, which is not what the original text intended to say IMHO. 
Also there in no Destination-Host _AVP_ per se in the peer table as the 
proposed resolution now suggests.

- Jouni


9/14/2015, 12:58 AM, RFC Errata System kirjoitti:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6733,
> "Diameter Base Protocol".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6733&eid=4473
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Keshab Upadhya <[e-mail]>
>
> Section: 6.1.4
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> 6.1.4.  Processing Local Requests
>
> The Destination-Host AVP is not present, the Destination-Realm AVP
> contains a realm the server is configured to process locally, and
> the Diameter application is locally supported; or
>
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> 6.1.4.  Processing Local Requests
>
> The Destination-Host AVP is not present in peer routing table,
> the Destination-Realm AVP contains a realm the server is
> configured to process locally, and
> the Diameter application is locally supported; or
>
>
> Notes
> -----
> 6.1.4 - Processing Local Requests
>
>        The Destination-Host AVP is not present, the Destination-Realm AVP
>        contains a realm the server is configured to process locally, and
>        the Diameter application is locally supported
>
> 6.1.6 - Request Routing
>
>     When a request is received that includes a realm
>     and/or application that is not locally supported, the message is
>     routed to the peer configured
>
> As given above 6.1.4 second rule contradicts with 6.1.6 para 2.
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum 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.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC6733 (draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-33)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Diameter Base Protocol
> Publication Date    : October 2012
> Author(s)           : V. Fajardo, Ed., J. Arkko, J. Loughney, G. Zorn, Ed.
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Diameter Maintenance and Extensions
> Area                : Operations and Management
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>