RE: RE : : Using DIAMETER_MISSING_AVP for optional AVP

I may agree on what you say, but after all it is always a missing AVP
what we are talking about. So, what suit best of an error of which
semantic is "missing AVP"?

Marco

-----Original Message-----
From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 1:55 PM
To: STURA Marco Consultant
Cc: MORAND Lionel RD-CORE-ISS; [email protected]
Subject: RE: RE : [AAA-WG]: Using DIAMETER_MISSING_AVP for optional AVP

> I was thinking to similar case as you mentioned. But what value other
> than DIAMETER_MISSING_AVP should be used in this case?
>
> I don't see any other value available at the moment, that's why the
> DIAMETER_MISSING_AVP seems the most appropriate.

Looking through the error messages, it isn't clear that any of the
current
ones fit this circumstance.  Essentially, you would be saying that the
semantics of the request are invalid.  So a new error message is
probably
needed.

> Having said that, it is possible that some other AVP that *is*
mandatory
> may take on a value that implies the need for another optional AVP,
> which is missing.  That would be a terminal error, but a Result_Code
> other than DIAMETER_MISSING_AVP should be used to indicate that.