Subject: Re: [Dime] Mail regarding draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005bis

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:35:24 +0700

LIU Hans [mailto:[email-masked]] writes:

Dear editor,

There is a typo about route-record AVP occurrence in AAA of section 5.1, it
should be 0 rather than 0+ according to AAA definition of section 3.2.

Thanks!  BTW, the same error exists in RFC 4005, so you might consider
filing an erratum with the RFC Editor.

Regards,

Hans

---

From: Sebastien Decugis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:45:55 +0900

Hello,

> There is a typo about route-record AVP occurrence in AAA of section
> 5.1, it should be 0 rather than 0+ according to AAA definition of
> section 3.2.
>

I respectfully disagree here. I think it makes sense to have
Route-Record AVP in answers as a general rule in Diameter. Moreover,
section 3.2 does not disallow it since the "*[AVP]" line appears in the
ABNF. An, finally, I see no reason why AAA command only would be
different from the other commands, with regard to an AVP that pertains
to base protocol behavior.

The typo fix, if needed, might be to add *[Route-Record] in the AAA ABNF?

My 2 cents,
Best regards,
Sebastien.

-- 
Sebastien Decugis
Research fellow
Network Architecture Group
NICT (nict.go.jp)

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:21:46 +0700

> The typo fix, if needed, might be to add *[Route-Record] in the AAA

OK.  The problem is that, AFAICT, Route-Record isn't specifically included
in any other answer command. In fact, the AVP is specifically prohibited in
all of the answer messages defined in RFC 3588, the statement in the final
paragraph of Section 3 of that document notwithstanding.

> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

---

From: Sebastien Decugis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 14:28:18 +0900

Hi again, thank you for the fast answer.

> paragraph of Section 3 of that document notwithstanding.
My apologies, I was mistakingly believing that the previous discussions
on this topic had lead to the adoption of Route-Record AVPs in answers.
Please disregard my previous comment...

References:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime/current/msg01542.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime/current/msg03402.html

Best regards,
Sebastien.

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:36:13 +0700

> on this topic had lead to the adoption of Route-Record AVPs in answers.

I'm not at all sure that you were mistaken about that, but no such decision
has been reflected in the draft.

---

From: Sebastien Decugis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 14:44:28 +0900

> has been reflected in the draft.
Sure. I was referring to older discussions (unrelated to this draft).

BTW, there is the same typo on the AC-Answer: ABNF in 3.10, AVP
occurence table in 5.2.1.
Route-Record AVP has been removed from ACA in RFC3588bis, so you might
want to reflect the same in 4005bis.

Best regards,
Sebastien.

---

From: jouni korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:08:53 +0300

Hi,

> paragraph of Section 3 of that document notwithstanding.

Yes.. the hop-by-hop identifier is used for the return path according to the Section 3 of RFC3588 and this is OK. However, the confusing thing in RFC3588 is that other sections have RFC2119 language regarding Route-Record in answers, which is confusing in general (see Section 2.10 last paragraph). This is now fixed in RFC3588bis but AFAIR some other SDO folks in past have decided to follow Section 2.10 "requirement" which means there are issues ahead with their specification & implementations.. or then not depending on how their ABNF defines Route-Record in answers.

- Jouni

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 13:18:50 +0700

Glen Zorn [mailto://[email-masked]] writes:

...

> has been reflected in the draft.

Sorry, I should have been more specific: what I _meant_ was "reflected in
RFC3588bis".

..