 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apologies, I'm a newcomer on this list.
In the process of developing a Diameter framework, I've
come across RFC4004. My strategy is to generate code
for encode/decode etc. by copying and pasting from the
spec into a text document, then parsing it and generating
code. As a result, errors in the spec tend to lead to
compilation error.
For RFC4004, I stumbled on the AVPs MIP-MN-HA-SPI
and MIP-HA-to-MN-SPI, which are not defined. They are
mentioned in the grouped AVPs MIP-MN-to-HA-MSA
and MIP-HA-to-MN-MSA respectively.
After some googling, I found that this had been noticed, and
a post by Peter McCann, 3 Jan 2007*, seemed to suggest
that I should simply remove them. Is this a correct assumption?
* http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime/current/msg01149.html
BTW, while I'm at it, I might as well contribute another one for the
upcoming rfc4004 errata:
Session-ID in the ABNF for AA-Mobile-Node-Request should be
Session-Id. While the names of messages and AVPs are really
of informational nature, they are useful for mapping to structs,
class names, etc., and these will be case-sensitive in many
languages.
BR,
Ulf Wiger
Ericsson AB
_______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime