[Dime] RFC3588bis; Result-Codes and AVP flags

Folks,

A couple of things still need to be clarified. I have the forthcoming -27 on my table, so..

1) What was the conclusion on this Result-Code mismatch? See mail from Sebastien that pointed this out:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime/current/msg04616.html

Glen also rightfully pointed out that these changes cause changes in peer behavior. So, a) are people happy with the new categorization currently in RFC3588bis? Or b) should we go back to existing RFC3588 categorization regarding Result-Code values?? (note that the numbering of the values is wrong as there are overlaps with IANA registry but that is easily fixable)

Raise your opinion. If you prefer a) then also state how to handle the "deprecated" values.

2) Discussion on AVP flags. RFC3588bis-26 Section 4.1 says:

      The AVP Flags field informs the receiver how each attribute must
      be handled.  The 'r' (reserved) bits are unused and SHOULD be set
      to 0.  Note that subsequent Diameter applications MAY define
      additional bits within the AVP Header, and an unrecognized bit
      SHOULD be considered an error. 

See the discussion around here, which ended without a firm conclusion:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime/current/msg04626.html

I would say we stay with the existing text. Any opinions against keeping the existing text? If yes, propose the new text.

- jouni

On Jan 26, 2011, at 4:31 AM, Sebastien Decugis wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I just compared the Result-Code values described in rfc3588bis-26
> section 7.1.x with existing IANA registry, and found several
> differences, which are currently not reflected in the IANA
> Considerations section -- I believe someone is already working on this
> section (although I lost track of whom) so I thought I would write down
> the differences I found to help in this work -- I hope this is not
> redundant.
> 
> DIAMETER_COMMAND_UNSUPPORTED:
> - value 3001 in IANA registry,
> - value 5019 in 3588bis.
> 
> DIAMETER_INVALID_HDR_BITS:
> - value 3008 in IANA,
> - value 5020 in 3588bis
> - also,
> 
> DIAMETER_INVALID_AVP_BITS:
> - value 3009 in IANA,
> - value 5021 in rfc3588bis
> 
> DIAMETER_UNKNOWN_PEER:
> - value 3010 in IANA,
> - value 5018 in rfc3588bis (conflicts with IANA)
> 
> DIAMETER_INVALID_BIT_IN_HEADER:
> - 5013 in IANA,
> - 3011 in rfc3588bis
> - seems redundant with DIAMETER_INVALID_HDR_BITS.
> 
> DIAMETER_INVALID_MESSAGE_LENGTH:
> - value 5015 in IANA,
> - value 3012 in rfc3588bis
> 
> DIAMETER_INVALID_AVP_BIT_COMBO:
> - value 5016 in IANA
> - not defined in rfc3588bis
> - is it deprecated? it seems redundant with DIAMETER_INVALID_AVP_BITS
> anyway...
> 
> Hope this helps,
> Sebastien.
> 
> -- 
> Sebastien Decugis
> Research fellow
> Network Architecture Group
> NICT (nict.go.jp)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime