Subject: Re: [AAA-WG]: Some editorial findings

From: Patrice Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:01:25 -0700

>Hi, Pat
>
>Sorry for 'bothering' you with this e-mail, but maybe is useful for you to have
>these corrections to incorporate them
>in base-03  They are just small spelling errors. See bottom of the e-mail for
>some other questions.

Not a bother at all. I really appreciate these comments, and will make the
necessary changes in -03.

>
>Some other issues:
>==================
>
>- A reply is the generic term to refer to Answers (corresponding to Requests)
>or
>Responses (corresponding to Queries), right? Then, if possible, unify in the
>document
>(e.g. section 3.0, section 12.4.7)

You are correct.

>
>- Section 14: Extension-Id AVP is not needed anymore in the accounting messages
>as they belong to base stuff, right ?

The Accounting messages are used to identify the application that genereated
the accounting messages. It is necessary to validate if the Necessary AVPs
are present.

> (not needed in ACR, ACA, ASI, API and Accounting AVP Table section 16.2)
>- I've noticed section 1.4 from Accounting 01 has been dropped from base-02
>draft. Was not useful?

Correct. Since the usage AVPs have been moved to the relevant extension
documents, section 1.4.1 was moved to 1.4, and the old 1.4 was removed.

>- Same for Accounting-Authentication-Type AVP, which does not appear in base-02.
>Is it not needed anymore?

This is only useful for NASREQ services, so it was moved to the nasreq extension.

PatC