Subject: [AAA-WG]:

From: Ingvar Pålsson (EPK) <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 17:38:06 +0100

Description of issue:
		Arbitrary AVPs vs MUST-NOT AVPs
	Submitter name: Ingvar Palsson
	Submitter email address: [email-masked]
	Date first submitted: 2001-11-28
	Reference: 
	Document: Diameter base 08
	Comment type: T
	Priority: 2
	Section: 3.2  & 10.1
	Rationale/Explanation of issue: 
		In section 3.2 "AVP" is defined as "*any* arbitrary AVP Name..." and this can be found in e.g. the ABNF of the CER command. But in 10.1, the AVP occurence table, the most base protocol AVPs are prohibited (0) in the CER command. How is this to be interpreted? Is 10.1 meant to be used as a rule at the verification of a received command?
	Requested change: 
		If the AVP occurence table is of any "greater" importance it could at least be referenced to from 3.2.