IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] Diameter Group: Type?

Erez Nassimi <erez.nassimi@amdocs.com> Fri, 28 January 2011 00:17 UTC

Return-Path: <erez.nassimi@amdocs.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 2513C3A6B0D for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:17:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.532
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.066, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 9GNQpYJ2KLts for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:17:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from isomail1.amdocs.com (isomail1.amdocs.com [193.43.244.88]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 652773A6AFD for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:17:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by isomail1.amdocs.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B2A9D706B8; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 02:20:32 +0200 (IST)
Received: from ilhodmailfe2.corp.amdocs.com (unknown [10.236.20.101]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by isomail1.amdocs.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E7D9706B8; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 02:20:29 +0200 (IST)
Received: from ILHODMAIL1.corp.amdocs.com ([10.236.20.104]) by ilhodmailfe2.corp.amdocs.com ([10.236.20.101]) with mapi; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 02:20:29 +0200
From: Erez Nassimi <erez.nassimi@amdocs.com>
To: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 02:20:27 +0200
Thread-Topic: RE: [Dime] Diameter Group: Type?
Thread-Index: Acu+gSnJJHP84QzsSm6O3Ho9MgQSZg==
Message-ID: <3EB9A6A055A0A74D816B7BA703D4054101A8963DCF@ILHODMAIL1.corp.amdocs.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_3EB9A6A055A0A74D816B7BA703D4054101A8963DCFILHODMAIL1cor_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 00:01:38 -0800
Subject: Re: [Dime] Diameter Group: Type?
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: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 00:17:32 -0000

Guys,


Thank you for the comments. I think everyone agrees there is a bug in RFC. But this can lead us to 2 different interpretations:

1.  Based on "an unrecognized bit SHOULD be considered an error", we could assume that "subsequent Diameter applications MAY define additional bits within the AVP Header", should have read "subsequent Diameter versions".

2.  But the words are very clear and as of now it says "subsequent Diameter applications".
In any case, my point was rather conceptual than technical. Defining a Grouped AVP as a type, is similar to classifying C++ classes in the same category as simple types as int, char, etc. There is a difference after all. I found it important enough to differentiate between them with a "G" bit.

Regards,
Erez Nassimi

This message and the information contained herein is proprietary and confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement,
you may review at http://www.amdocs.com/email_disclaimer.asp

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email