RE: RE : : Using DIAMETER_MISSING_AVP for optional AVP

Hi,

I think DIAMETER_MISSING_AVP can be used to indicate
whatever missing AVP.

The actual definition of the error-code in RFC 3588 does not
limit the usage to mandatory AVPs only. What is described in
Section 7.11 (which is not the definition of the error-code)
is just one example how the error-code can be used.


BR,
Mikko


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> ext STURA Marco Consultant
> Sent: 11 November, 2004 15:12
> To: Bernard Aboba
> Cc: MORAND Lionel RD-CORE-ISS; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: RE : [AAA-WG]: 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.
>