Re: [Dime] RFC3588 7.2 Misleading ABNF

[Yoshihiro Ohba <yohba at tari.toshiba.com>]

Hi Glen,

On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 11:19:02AM -0700, Glen Zorn (gwz) wrote:
> >> 
> >> c) { Origin-Host } { Origin-Realm }
> >> I assume those are *not* the Origin-Host Origin-Realm AVP of the
> >> original message -7.4 Error-Reporting hints that they aren't-. Why
> >> do we need them? If for troubleshooting, I would opt for
> >> Error-Reporting-Host AVP. When 
> >> a relay agent receives a protocol error answer, how does it know
> >> which Origin-Host/Origin-Realm AVP to remove -there is also a pair
> >> for the 
> >> original message, which should be kept intact-.
> > 
> > Origin-Host AVP and Error-Reporting-Host AVP may point to different
> > nodes, since Origin-Host and Origin-Realm AVPs may be replaced by a
> > proxy.  
> 
> I believe that you are mistaken on this: section 6.3 of RFC 3588 states "The Origin-Host AVP (AVP Code 264) is of type DiameterIdentity, and MUST be present in all Diameter messages.  This AVP identifies the endpoint that originated the Diameter message.  Relay agents MUST NOT modify this AVP.", while section 1.1 says "A Diameter agent is a node that does not authenticate and/or authorize messages locally; agents include proxies, redirects and relay agents."  

Is a proxy a relay agent?  I could not find such an explicit statement
in RFC 3588, but I could be wrong.

Yoshihiro Ohba





> 
> ...
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> ~gwz
> 
> Why is it that most of the world's problems can't be solved by simply
>   listening to John Coltrane? -- Henry Gabriel
> 

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
DiME at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime