Subject: RE: [AAA-WG]: [AAA] Using DIAMETER_MISSING_AVP for optional AVP

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 16:22:43 +0200

Hi,

I think DIAMETER_MISSING_AVP can be used to indicate that an optional
AVP (defined inside '[]' in the ABNF) is missing in the received command.

I think this is useful for example for Diameter Applications that have
AVPs that are defined to be present in certain conditions and absent
in other conditions.

BR,
Mikko

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of ext MORAND Lionel RD-CORE-ISS
Sent: 30 October, 2004 11:40
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [AAA-WG]: [AAA] Using DIAMETER_MISSING_AVP for optional AVP

Hi AAA folks,
In the RFC 3588, the result-code DIAMETER_MISSING_AVP is ussed to indicate that a mandatory AVP (required by the command code ABNF specification) is missing in the received command.
Is it possible to use the DIAMETER_MISSING_AVP result code along with the Failed-AVP AVP to indicate that an optional AVP (from the ABNF point of view) is missing in the received command? If not, could you identify some operational issues?
Any opinion?
Lionel