Subject: [AAA-WG]: Issue #277: session-id & user-name AVPs; NASREQ inconsistancies - CLOSED

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 09:51:05 +0200

Hi all,

Agreed, 9.5 modified to read:

  In all accounting records, the Session-Id AVP MUST be present; the User-Name 
  AVP MUST be present if it is available to the Diameter client. 

John

Issue #277
Submitter name: Jari Arkko (Sebastian Zander)
Submitter email address: [email-masked]
Date first submitted: Feb 10, 2002
Reference: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/aaa-wg/msg03001.html
Document: base, nasreq
Comment type: E
Priority: 2
Section: 9.5, 9.7.1, 9.7.2, nasreq 10.2
Rationale/Explanation of issue:

Section 9.5 of base-08 reads:  "In all accounting records the
Session-Id and User-Name AVPs MUST be present.". However, the Diameter node
sending the accounting request may not know it. Still the target can use the various
session-ID AVPs to correlate the records. There also seems to be some inconsistency
in the draft and between base-08 and nasreq-08: In section 9.7.1 & 9.7.2
(ACR, ACA definition) User-Name AVP is marked as optional  while in
section 10.2 it is again specified as MUST.

Proposed change:

I suggest modifying 9.5 so that it reads. "User-Name AVP MUST be present if
it is available to the Diameter client."

Then change the tables in 10.2 as follows:

    User-Name                     | 0+   | 0+   |