Subject: [Dime] rfc3588bis: forbidden AVP in ABNF?

From: Sebastien Decugis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 13:35:22 +0900

Hello,

I have a couple of questions with regards to the ABNF specifications in 
rfc3588bis document.

 From the section "3.2. Command Code ABNF specification" it seems 
possible to specify which AVPs are forbidden in a command by using the 
value 0 for the "max" identifier, such as:
    *0 [ avp-spec ]
or
    *0 { avp-spec }

Is this correct? Which symbols should be used for this purpose, between 
"<>", "[]", and "{}"?

And, shouldn't the ABNF for commands directed to directly-connected 
peers (such as CER/CEA, DPR/DPA, and DWR/DWA) include in their ABNF 
specification the routing AVPS (Destination-Realm, Destination-Host, 
Route-Record, Proxy-Info, etc...)  with this "forbidden" specifier?

Example:

         <CER> ::= < Diameter Header: 257, REQ >
                   { Origin-Host }
                   { Origin-Realm }
                1* { Host-IP-Address }
                   { Vendor-Id }
                   { Product-Name }
                 *0{ Destination-Realm }
                 *0{ Destination-Host }
                 *0{ Route-Record }
                 *0{ Proxy-Info }
                   [ Origin-State-Id ]
                 * [ Supported-Vendor-Id ]
                 * [ Auth-Application-Id ]
                 * [ Inband-Security-Id ]
                 * [ Acct-Application-Id ]
                 * [ Vendor-Specific-Application-Id ]
                   [ Firmware-Revision ]
                 * [ AVP ]

Thank you,
Sebastien.

-- 
Sebastien Decugis
Research fellow
Network Architecture Group
NICT (nict.go.jp)

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime