Subject: RE: [AAA-WG]: Vendor Command Code resolution

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 14:51:00 +0300

Hi Yoshimiro,

> How do you think what the dictionary lookup key should be for the
> suggested change?  In the -11 draft, command dictionary is looked up
> by using Command-Code and Vendor-ID (both appear in the Diameter
> header) as the lookup key.  If lookup key is going to include
> information contained in an AVP as well as Command-Code, that would
> complicate message parser implementation (no good at all, please don't
> do that!!).  On the other hand, if lookup key uses only Command-Code,
> it would work only when different vendors use different code values in
> experimental command code space....

As I have understood, one of the reasons the IESG has for moving
to an experimental command code is to prevent common usage
of non-standard command codes.  It is because interoperability
cannot be ensured when non-standard commands are used.  

Your observation is correct, but this is a feature that the IESG
does not wish to see in Diameter.

John

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 07:00:21 -0700 (PDT)

> does not wish to see in Diameter.

The comment still stands, though -- that it is very awkward to be unable
to interpret the command without parsing AVPs. Perhaps the application
ID should go in the header?