Subject: [AAA-WG]: Issue #12: Multiple Result-Code AVPs

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 16:00:45 -0700

I brought up this topic some time back, but the main issue has to
do with proxies adding a Result-Code AVP to a message that is protected
via an E2E security AVP. 

If a message is sent, and it's Result-Code AVP is protected via one of
the E2E security AVPs, and an intermediate proxy determines that there
is an error in the message, it would have no way to add such an error to the
message.

Therefore, I believe that it is necessary to allow for multiple Result-Code
AVPs. Furthermore, since multiple such AVPs MAY be present, it is necessary
for the AVP to be Grouped, and also include the Error-Reporting-FQDN.

As far as the Error-Reporting-FQDN is concerned, there is an issue:
1. If an error is sent by the Diameter node creating the packet, the
   Origin-FQDN will contain the exact same value as the Error-Reporting-FQDN.
2. If another Diameter node wishes to add a Result-Code, then this AVP
   is of value.

So, should we allow for a streamlined approach, where if the host creating
the message is inserting the Result-Code AVP, then it doesn't need to
include the Error-Reporting-FQDN, but proxies would?

If so, we could have a new Grouped AVP, called Proxy-Result-Code, which
would include the Result-Code and the Error-Reporting-FQDN AVPs. The
Error-Reporting-FQDN wouldn't be used outside the new Grouped AVP for the
reasons discussed above.

Thoughts?

PatC