Subject: RE: [AAA-WG]: Result codes in vendor specific applications

From: "Sami Vaarala" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:42:55 +0300

Mark,

Would we then have a Result-Code that indicates a vendor-specific
success/error code, which is then contained in the
Vendor-Specific-Result-Code AVP?

Does the receiver benefit from partial understanding ("it is an
error, but it is vendor specific") provided by the Result-Code?

Or would we simply have either Result-Code or
Vendor-Specific-Result-Code?

-Sami

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Jones [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 18 April 2002 17:05
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [AAA-WG]: Result codes in vendor specific applications

I agree with Sami that flipping the 'V' bit in the AVP header to get a
vendor-specific result code is inappropriate since it blocks any vendor
from
defining an AVP with code 268. This may be a problem for vendors who
have
already used this code in their RADIUS vendor-specifc AVPs.

I would prefer to find the vendor-specific result codes in one AVP
regardless of vendor rather than have to hunt for the message result
based
on vendor/application. However, I'd rather we introduce a new
Vendor-Specific-Result-Code AVP instead of changing the existing
Result-Code
AVP to be a grouped AVP.

Regards,
       Mark

---

From: "Mark Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:50:57 -0400

Sami,

> Vendor-Specific-Result-Code AVP?

No, I'd prefer a single result code per message.

> error, but it is vendor specific") provided by the Result-Code?

I'm not sure that a receiver could act upon the partial understanding other
than by just logging the result code(s). For an administrator to be able to
debug the problem, the receiver would still have to log both Result-Code and
the Vendor-Specific-Result-Code.

If we decide the Result-Code AVP is required in addition to the
Vendor-Specific-Result-Code, it also leaves developers with the question
"Which generic Result-Code is most appropriate for my vendor-specifc
problem?". This mapping may not always be obvious and so it will probably
not be done consistently (especially across different vendors).

Regards,
       Mark