Subject: Comments on draft-calhoun-diameter-18.txt

From: "Fredrik Johansson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:28:23 +0100

The <Grouped-AVP> is missing in the table in section 2.2.5

/Fredrik

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Fredrik Johansson                    W: +46 (0)8 725 5916
Interactive People Unplugged     M: +46 (0)70 786 5035
mailto:[email-masked]
http://www.ipunplugged.com

---

From: Erik Guttman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:16:46 +0100

> Fredrik Johansson wrote:

Its definition is missing too.  This is *intentional*.  Grouped-AVP
has been replaced by the Grouped value type.  This has several
advantages over a Grouped AVP.  (1) we can get rid of the 'Complex'
data type so that all AVP values are either well defined types or
a sequence of AVPs, which are themselves well defined.  (2) We do
not have open ended groups, (bags of AVPs) but rather defined 
sequences of AVPs, all of which MUST be there in the defined order.
(3) This makes it much easier to specify DIAMETER formally and to
ensure interoperability.

Erik

._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.
E r i k   G u t t m a n         SHORT msgs: [email-masked]
Sr Staff Engineer, Sun Microsystems       Email: [email-masked]
Eichhoelzelstr. 7, 74915 Waibstadt Germany    Phone: +49 172 865 5497

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:32:12 -0800 (PST)

> The <Grouped-AVP> is missing in the table in section 2.2.5
I think Erik addressed this one, but I am no longer sure. Grouped is now a
data type, much like Unsigned32 and OctetString. So, AVPs MAY be of type
Grouped, as opposed to a single Generic AVP that can contain an arbitrary set
of AVPs.

I think the new approach is a much cleaner approach.

PatC