Subject: [AAA-WG]: Re: Issue 424: Record-Route AVP in Responses

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 10:01:58 -0700 (PDT)

After looking at this, my conclusion is that Record-Route AVPs can be
included either in requests or responses and that the lack of occurrence
in the AVP tables in Diameter Base was a typo.  I think this because the
text in Base 2.10 seems to assume that Record-Route AVPs are in responses,
and because they are allowed in Accounting-Responses.

Based on this, it would appear that the issue is an inconsistency in
Diameter Base, and that the NASREQ text assume Record-Route in responses
is correct.

Anyone else have an opinion in this?

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 09:33:59 +0300

Bernard,

> Anyone else have an opinion in this?

I concur.  The text about the Record-Route AVPs was written before my
time (I think); I assume it was meant that these AVPs are assumed
to be in responses.

John