RE : : Using DIAMETER_MISSING_AVP for optional AVP

Hi John,

Another question:

what is the purpose of defining required/optional AVP in the command code ABNF description?
If DIAMETER_MISSING_AVP could be used for any missing AVP whatever its category (required/optional), there is no reason to define required AVP for a specific command code. Any AVP used in the command code ABNF definition could be defined as optional.

Is it correct?

Lionel

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
> De la part de MORAND Lionel RD-CORE
> Envoyé : mardi 2 novembre 2004 17:02
> À : [email protected]; [email protected]
> Objet : RE : [AAA-WG]: Using DIAMETER_MISSING_AVP for optional AVP
> 
> 
> > From 3588:
> > 
> >    DIAMETER_MISSING_AVP               5005
> >       The request did not contain an AVP that is required by the
> Command
> >       Code definition.  If this value is sent in the 
> Result-Code AVP,
> a
> >       Failed-AVP AVP SHOULD be included in the message.  The
> Failed-AVP
> >       AVP MUST contain an example of the missing AVP 
> complete with the
> >       Vendor-Id if applicable.  The value field of the missing AVP
> >       should be of correct minimum length and contain zeroes.
> > 
> > My guess is that if a particular implementation or
> > application was expecting an AVP to be included, this would 
> > be a reasonable way to do it.
> > 
> 
> Based on this definition, it is only applicable to AVP 
> "required by the
> command code definition". It is not clear if we could reuse the same
> result code for an optional AVP.
> If there is a general consensus on this topic, maybe a modification to
> the existing definition should be done.
> 
> Besides, if we could reuse the same result code for required 
> or optional
> AVP, should we state that "a Failed-AVP AVP MUST be included" 
> instead of
> "should be included"?
> My assumption was that a "SHOULD" was possible here because you could
> have relyed on the command code ABNF descritpion to find the missing
> AVP. If the above assupmtion is correct, it is not possible 
> anymore and
> you have to use the Failed-AVP.
> 
> Lionel
>