RE : : Using DIAMETER_MISSING_AVP for optional AVP

Hi John,

I repeat that this mechanism is not restricted to conditional AVPs but
could be generalized to any optional AVP. 

> > 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.  

About the last point:
Some 'vendors' try to design properly their Diameter extensions. The
philosophy is: If it's possible with the standard mecanisms, use the
standard specs; if not, define the suitable solution.
So here the question is not to know what it is possible to do within a
'vendor' specific implementation. The question is:

Does the RFC 3588 allow (or not prevent) to use DIAMETER_MISSING_AVP for
an optional AVP?

If not, It's up to the 'vendors' to decide how to solve this issue.

Lionel