[Dime] Relationship between application Id in the message header vs. Auth-Application-Id in the body

["Tom-PT Taylor" <taylor at nortel.com>]

It seems to me section 1.3 of RFC 4005 provides a clue to why 
application Ids appear both in the header and in an AVP in the body. The 
application Id in the header is intended for routing, no question about 
that. But could the one in the body indicate the specification from 
which the command is imported? That would suggest that section 3 of RFC 
3588 should be changed to allow the header application Id to differ from 
the one in the body.

Harking back to my conversation with Tolga, this would fit nicely with 
the "second approach", which properly reuses commands rather than 
creating vendor-defined variants.

BTW I just reread the part that says there are only two command codes 
available for experimental use.

Tom Taylor

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