RE: : ISSUE: Extensibility of commands (Result-Code)

Hi!

If the command is sent with a Vendor-Specific-Application-Id it
means that the ABNF of the command can be different compared to
the ABNF of the command sent with a standard application-id.

One example of such change in ABNF is the usage of 
Vendor-Specific-Application-Id AVP instead of Auth-Application-Id.

When a Diameter command is received by a Diameter node the node
uses the command-code and application-id to identify the ABNF
that applies to the received command.


> Or is it that vendor specific applications can only use commands
> that are not defined by IETF?

No.


BR,
Mikko


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> ext German Blanco (E2/EEM)
> Sent: 29 October, 2005 15:47
> To: Garcia Miguel.An (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki)
> Cc: '[email protected]'; J.Javier Pastor (E2/EEM)
> Subject: RE: [AAA-WG]: ISSUE: Extensibility of commands (Result-Code)
> 
> 
> 
> Since Diameter commands are meant to be reused by different Diameter
> applications, I understand that this should be the case for the 
> commands in the Diameter SIP application too.  How is a 
> vendor specific
> application going to use this command if it is not possible to add
> the vendor application id in it?
> 
> Or is it that vendor specific applications can only use commands that
> are not defined by IETF?
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Miguel Garcia [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: viernes, 28 de octubre de 2005 10:39
> > To: German Blanco (E2/EEM)
> > Cc: '[email protected]'; J.Javier Pastor (E2/EEM)
> > Subject: Re: [AAA-WG]: ISSUE: Extensibility of commands 
> (Result-Code)
> > 
> > 
> > An analysis of this issue:
> > 
> > I start by clarifying that the Diameter Cx application is a 
> > vendor-specific application, whereas the Diameter SIP 
> application is 
> > not, it will be a standard track document.
> > 
> > Thus, there is not a vendor-specific application allocated to the 
> > Diameter SIP application, and thus, IMHO it makes no sense to allow 
> > vendor-specific experimental result codes in the Diameter SIP app.
> > 
> > The text in RFC 3588 that you are referring, about the 
> > incompatibility 
> > of Result-Code with Experimental-Result-Code... I guess you 
> > refer to the 
> > following text:
> > 
> >     All Diameter answer messages defined in vendor-specific
> >     applications MUST include either one Result-Code AVP or one
> >     Experimental-Result AVP.
> > 
> > Obviously, as I indicated, the Diameter SIP application is NOT a 
> > vendor-specific applicaion, and thus, first can't contain 
> > Experimental-Result, and second, the above text does not apply.
> > 
> > In my opinion this issue is rejected.
> > 
> > /Miguel