RFC Errata
RFC 4006, "Diameter Credit-Control Application", August 2005
Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 8506
Source of RFC: aaa (ops)
Errata ID: 3329
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Kiran Jadhav
Date Reported: 2012-08-23
Held for Document Update by: Benoit Claise
Section 5.6.2 says:
" Note that the credit-control server may already have initiated the above-described process for the first interrogation. However, the user's account might be empty when this first interrogation is performed. In this case, the subscriber can be offered a chance to replenish the account and continue the service. The credit-control client receives a Credit-Control-Answer or service specific authorization answer with the Final-Unit-Indication and Validity-Time AVPs but no Granted-Service-Unit. It immediately starts the graceful service termination without sending any message to the server. An example of this case is illustrated in Appendix A."
It should say:
" Note that the credit-control server may already have initiated the above-described process for the first interrogation. However, the user's account might be empty when this first interrogation is performed. In this case, the subscriber can be offered a chance to replenish the account and continue the service. The credit-control client receives a Credit-Control-Answer or service specific authorization answer with the Final-Unit-Indication and Validity-Time AVPs but no Granted-Service-Unit AVP. It immediately starts the graceful service termination without sending any message to the server. An example of this case is illustrated in Appendix A."
Notes:
In the sentence "The credit-control
client receives a Credit-Control-Answer or service specific
authorization answer with the Final-Unit-Indication and Validity-Time
AVPs but no Granted-Service-Unit." it is important that we add the letters "AVP" after Granted-Service-Units as it is not clear whether the sentence refers to "Not sending Granted-Service-Unit AVP at all" or "sending GSU=0 (Granted-Service-Unit AVP with value 0".
Different OCS vendors interpret the sentence above in a different way, some do not send the Granted-Service-Unit AVP at all, while some others send the Granted_Service-Unit=0. And this causes problem in the call scenario where FUI+Redirect is sent together with GSU=0. This causes the call to enter a loop and terminate with an error.