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

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:01:21 +0300

Bernard Aboba wrote:
> 
> 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?

Yes, I guess we could allow Route-Record AVPs in responses well.
However, we still need to clarify how they get there... what
would be the best way to get this specified? Having NASREQ
update RFC3588? A new RFC that updates RFC3588?

BTW, the current text in NASREQ isn't consistent with what IMHO
would be the most logical way to add the Route-Records (proxies
add them to responses one by one). But there isn't any clearly
specified alternative it would be consistent with either...

Best regards,
Pasi

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 06:42:49 -0700 (PDT)

> update RFC3588? A new RFC that updates RFC3588?

We could submit an errata for RFC 3588, since it is RFC 3588 that is
internally inconsistent.  Then we could clarify how they get there in
NASREQ.

> specified alternative it would be consistent with either...

Could you suggest new text?