RE: : 3588 issue with Vendor-Specific-Application-Id

Hi Avi,

I believe there is a requirement for an application combinining an Authentication and
Authorization portion and an accounting portion with sesparate Applivation IDs. Read the Diameter base RFC:

"
6.8.  Auth-Application-Id AVP

   The Auth-Application-Id AVP (AVP Code 258) is of type Unsigned32 and
   is used in order to advertise support of the Authentication and
   Authorization portion of an application (see Section 2.4).  The
   Auth-Application-Id MUST also be present in all Authentication and/or
   Authorization messages that are defined in a separate Diameter
   specification and have an Application ID assigned.

6.9.  Acct-Application-Id AVP

   The Acct-Application-Id AVP (AVP Code 259) is of type Unsigned32 and
   is used in order to advertise support of the Accounting portion of an
   application (see Section 2.4).  The Acct-Application-Id MUST also be
   present in all Accounting messages.  Exactly one of the Auth-
   Application-Id and Acct-Application-Id AVPs MAY be present.
"

I do not see why different rules should be applied to vendor specific application IDs.

Your corresponding wording proposal is fine, thanks.

Regards, Thomas

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avi Lior [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 6:26 PM
> To: Belling Thomas; '[email protected]'
> Subject: RE: [AAA-WG]: 3588 issue with Vendor-Specific-Application-Id
> 
> 
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> Actually I don't think you can have both Auth and Application 
> Id.  This is a
> nother problem with the spec as it exists today. It allows for both.
> 
> So, if only one or the other is allowed then the following is better.
> 
> "Exactly one of the Auth-Application-Id or exactlly one of the
> Acct-Application-Id AVPs MUST be present but not both."
> 
> If you want to allow both then:
> 
> "Exactly one or both of the Auth-Application-Id or Exactlly one of the
> Acct-Application-Id AVPs MUST be present."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Belling Thomas [mailto:[email protected]] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 12:03 PM
> > To: 'Avi Lior'; '[email protected]'
> > Subject: RE: [AAA-WG]: 3588 issue with 
> Vendor-Specific-Application-Id
> > 
> > 
> > Dear Avi,
> > 
> > the proposed change rule out that you supply both one 
> > Auth-Application-Id and one Acct-Application-Id in the same 
> > Vendor-Specific-Application-Id AVP, although this makes sense.
> > 
> > regards, Thomas Belling
> > 
> > 
> > ----------------------------------
> > Dr. Thomas Belling
> > Siemens AG           
> > Sankt-Martin-Str. 76 
> > D-81541 München Germany
> > Com MN PG NT MN 1
> > MCH M 34 307
> > Tel     +49 89 636 75207
> > Fax     +49 89 636 75577
> > Mobile  +49 172 2974678
> > Email   [email protected]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > On Behalf Of Avi Lior
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 5:57 PM
> > > To: '[email protected]'
> > > Subject: [AAA-WG]: 3588 issue with Vendor-Specific-Application-Id
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Description of issue
> > > 
> > > Submitter name: Avi Lior	
> > > Submitter email address: [email protected]
> > > Date first submitted: May 10, 2005
> > > Reference:
> > > Document: 3%88
> > > Comment type: T
> > > Priority: S
> > > Section: 6.11
> > > Rationale/Explanation of issue:
> > > 
> > > As the 3588 stands nowm Vendor-Specific-Application-Id AVP is
> > > allowed to
> > > have just a vendor-id element. This does not make any sense.
> > > 
> > > Length description of problem
> > > 
> > > The ABNF of the Vendor-Specific-Application-Id given below:
> > > 
> > > <Vendor-Specific-Application-Id> ::= < AVP Header: 260 >
> > >                                      1* [ Vendor-Id ]
> > >                                      0*1{ Auth-Application-Id }
> > >                                      0*1{ Acct-Application-Id }
> > > 
> > > And the following text from 3588 section 6.11:
> > > 
> > > "Exactly one of the Auth-Application-Id and
> > > Acct-Application-Id AVPs MAY be
> > > present."
> > > 
> > > Allows us to have a Vendor-Specific-Application-Id 
> containing only 
> > > Vendor-Id.
> > > 
> > > I don't think that that is the intent.
> > > 
> > > Requested change:
> > > 
> > > To fix this problem,
> > > 
> > > Change:
> > > "Exactly one of the Auth-Application-Id and
> > > Acct-Application-Id AVPs MAY be
> > > present."
> > > 
> > > To:
> > > "Exactly one of the Auth-Application-Id or
> > > Acct-Application-Id AVPs MUST be
> > > present."
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > Avi Lior                                    
> > > Bridgewater Systems Corporation                
> > > Phone :  (613) 591-9104 x6417
> > > Cell    :  (613) 297-2177
> > > E-mail : mailto:[email protected] 
> > www.bridgewatersystems.com
> > >  
> > > 
> > 
>