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
>
>