Subject: [AAA-WG]: [issue] Grouped AVP

From: Paul Funk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 11:57:13 -0400

Grouped AVP

Submitter name: Paul Funk, Dave Frascone 
Submitter email address: [email-masked], [email-masked] 
Date first submitted: May, 20001 
Reference: many but look at
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/aaa-wg/msg00883.html 
Document: Base 
Comment Type: Technical 
Priority: 1 or 2 (?) 
Section: Somewhere in section 4 
Proprietary Tag: C 
Rationale/Explanation of issue: 

Grouped AVPs MUST NOT be fixed. The same flexibility that Diameter 
provides is required for Grouped AVPs. See the above URL for a problem 
that was discussed on the list. Not solving this problem will 
require that many GRouped AVPs be defined for all possible 
combinations. 

Requested change: 

Make Grouped AVP definitions use ABNF, same as command codes. 

Suggested language:

4.4 Grouped AVP Values 

The Diameter protocol allows AVP values of type 'Grouped.' This implies 
that the Data field comprises one or more AVPs.

Every AVP defined to be of data type Grouped MUST include a corresponding 
ABNF specification, which is used to define the permitted arrangements of AVPs 
within the Group.

The format to be used follows the format for Command Code ABNF 
specifications (3.2), with the following additional definition:

group-def = AVP-name "::=" [*fixed] [*required] [*optional] [*fixed]

It is possible to include an AVP with a Grouped type within a 
Grouped type, that is, to nest them. AVPs within an AVP of type 
Grouped have the same padding requirements as non-Grouped AVPs, as 
defined in section 4.0.

Example:

group-def ::= example-avp 
        {Origin-FQDN} 
        {Host-IP-Address} 
        *[AVP]

Paul

Paul Funk
Funk Software, Inc.
617 497-6339
[email-masked]