Subject: [AAA-WG]: To recap the Vendor-ID stuff...

From: Patrice Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 07:45:19 -0800 (PST)

All,

I just need to make sure that I understand the desire of the WG. I currently
have the DRI (in the -02 candidate) as:

<Device-Reboot-Ind> ::= < Diameter Header: 257 >
                        { Origin-FQDN }
                        { Origin-Realm }
                     1* { Host-IP-Address }
                        { Vendor-Id }
                        { Product-Name }
                      * { Supported-Vendor-Id }
                      * { Extension-Id }
                        [ Firmware-Revision ]
                      * [ AVP ]

I have a couple of questions/comments:

1. What is the purpose of the Firmware-Revision if the Product-Name is there.
The Product-Name is a string, and could include the version of the device. Is
the Firmeware-Revision of any use?

2. I received plenty of comments that a Vendor-Id would be better than a
Vendor-Name, as shown above. The initial objection was that this required that
Diameter vendors apply for an SMI, which apparently is a trivial process. So,
are there any objections?

3. As concensus shows, the Supported-Vendor-Id will be in the DRI.

PatC

---

From: "Mark Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:16:47 -0500

> the Firmeware-Revision of any use?

Yes, I think the Firmware-Revision should remain a separate AVP. I believe
these Vendor/Product/Firmware AVPs will be used by Diameter servers to
lookup the vendor-specific capabilities/idiosyncrasies of a peer and so
machine-friendly is key here. If the Firmware-Revision is added to the
Product-Name, it now has to be parsed by a server that is only interested in
the Product-Name.

Regards,
       Mark