Subject: Re: [AAA-WG]: [Issue] Proposed fix for Grouped AVP (Issue 11)

From: Erik Guttman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 16:52:33 +0-200

>> This is no longer true.  The Diameter modified ABNF has special rules
>> for optional terms which are not in ABNF.  For instance, a term in 
>> the optional AVP section cannot evaluate to a term in a fixed or
>> required section.  Suggested fix:
>> 
>>    Every Grouped AVP defined MUST include a corresponding grammar,
>>    using ABNF [31] with Diameter extensions, as defined below.
>
>How about:
>    Every Grouped AVP defined MUST include a corresponding grammar,
>    using ABNF [31], as defined below.
>
>(not sure what "with Diameter extensions" meant)

The point is that ABNF as used in the diameter spec is not using
ABNF as defined in RFC 2234.  It uses ABNF with extensions, specific
to Diameter.  My text is ambiguous (given that Diameter extensions
with a capital E means something else).  How about:

    Every Grouped AVP defined MUST include a corresponding grammar,
    using ABNF [31] (with modifications), as defined below.

._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.
E r i k   G u t t m a n         SHORT msgs: [email-masked]
Sr Staff Engineer, Sun Microsystems       Email: [email-masked]
Eichhoelzelstr. 7, 74915 Waibstadt Germany    Phone: +49 172 865 5497