Subject: [AAA-WG]: Why two parsers: XML parser and AVP parser?

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 14:27:45 +0800

Hi,

The paragraph in http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-api-02.txt Section 2.5 says:

-------------------------------------
2.5 Command Dictionary File

   The commands that can be parsed by the local Diameter client library
   or server are defined in a command dictionary file containing the
   command definitions including AVPs. The location and name of the
   command dictionary file is platform-specific. This file is read and

   parsed to drive creation of a command dictionary which is used by the
   library to parse commands. The syntax for the command dictionary file
   is in XML and a DTD described it is available in [4].  XML was
   selected as the definition language because support for XML parsing
   is available as an extension to the standard Java APIs [5] and as a
   wide variety of public-domain C libraries, simplifying
   implementation. Both APIs also support programmatic definition of
   commands, AVPs, and extensions so programs can add commands not in
   the dictionary for purposes of experimentation and implementing the
   library.
-------------------------------------

Is it a good reason that we adopt only one parser, say it, XML parser, in our diameter specifications? In other words, can we change those to-and-fro diameter messges into the XML format for the simplicity of our diameter implementations?

Best regards,
roger