Hi Jouni,
Thank you very much for your correction and telling me the right place for
FQDN.
Best Regards,
Fortune
-----Original Message-----
From: jouni korhonen [mailto:jouni.nospam at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 5:43 PM
To: Fortune HUANG
Cc: 'Victor Fajardo'; lionel.morand at orange-ftgroup.com; dime at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] Problem with Origin- & Destination-Realm AVPs in
RFC3588bis
Hi Fortune,
On Mar 5, 2009, at 4:46 AM, Fortune HUANG wrote:
[snip]
My conclusion after comparing the grammars of the three RFCs:
1) According to the above RFC4282 grammar, "2.a " is a valid realm.
Correct.
2) According to the above RFC4566 grammar, "2.a " is not a valid
FQDN since
it has only 3 characters (not 4 or more).
First, RFC4566 ABNF is not in a role for defining FQDN.. it is an ABNF
for SDP grammar. So if the SDP grammar ABNF is wrong, it is not the
problem of original FQDN ABNF. Besides, using "2.a" as an example is
misleading. There is no root zones that are one character long (see
ICP-1, RFC1591). The shortest root zone is two characters, which would
e.g. be "2.ac" and this is correct according to the ABNF in RFC4566.
The RFC1035 BNF would allow one character root zones, however, those
just do not exist in Internet DNS.
3) According to the above RFC1035 grammar, "2.a" is not a valid
domain since
it doesn't start with a letter (but a digit).
updates RFC1035 and relaxes the issue with a digit being the
first character.
If one could prove that the grammar of realm is the same as the
grammar of
FQDN, then, RFC4282, RFC1035 and RFC4566 would be proven inconsistent
according.
So far, no problems with cases 2) and 3). Regarding the case 1) few
notes. RFC3588bis section 1.3. states that "NAI realm names are
required to be unique, and are piggybacked on the administration of
the DNS namespace." This basically means one loses its rights for
"creative" realm names when used with Diameter. In DNS, one character
root zones do not exist, thus "2.a" is not legal within Diameter scope.
However, I am not sure if I have found the right place where the
strict
grammar of FQDN is defined. Please tell me if you know.
But RFC4566 and RFC1035 were the materials my comment in the
previous email
was based on.
Although this stuff is spread a bit around and topped with de-facto
assumptions, I think there is no issue.
Cheers,
Jouni
Best Regards,
Fortune
-----Original Message-----
From: Victor Fajardo [mailto:vfajardo at tari.toshiba.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 6:02 AM
To: lionel.morand at orange-ftgroup.com
Cc: fqhuang at huawei.com; glenzorn at comcast.net; dime at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] Problem with Origin- & Destination-Realm AVPs in
RFC3588bis
Hi Fortune,
I'm not sure to understand but I might have missed something.
From a syntax point of view, what is the difference between a FQDN
and a
realm?
What would be the "potential" impacts to say that the
DiameterIdentity can
be a FQDN or a realm?
I have the same question as Lionel. Syntactically, FQDN and realm
are the
same from the parsers point of view. The difference is in semantics
which is
already specified by the AVP having that type.
regards,
victor
_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
DiME at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
