RE: RE : : 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.

So, you were asking about Conditional AVPs.  There are no such things as
conditional AVPs in the base spec, that is why they are not mentioned.

I am aware that there are some 'vendors' making Diameter extensions to 
introduce this kind of 'feature.'  I don't see why those 'vendors' can't use
DIAMETER_MISSING_AVP to mean a conditional AVP as well.  

> If there is a general consensus on this topic, maybe a modification to
> the existing definition should be done.

Why?  Diameter has no notion of conditional AVPs.

> 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"?

What is your reasoning for this?

> 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.

I'm sorry, could you restate what you mean, I am having a hard time understanding
your point.

thanks,
John