RFC Errata

Errata Search

Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

RFC 6733, "Diameter Base Protocol", October 2012

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 7075, RFC 8553

Source of RFC: dime (ops)
See Also: RFC 6733 w/ inline errata

Errata ID: 4808
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Zbigniew Rapnicki
Date Reported: 2016-09-22
Verifier Name: Benoit Claise
Date Verified: 2017-01-04

Section 1.1.3 says:

This document obsoletes RFC 3588 but is fully backward compatible
   with that document.

It should say:

This document obsoletes RFC 3588.


When comparing the BNF for the answer messages CEA, DPA, DWA, RAA, STA and ASA it can be seen that FAILED-AVP avp is no longer marked with the * which means it can be present only once in the diameter message.
Previous specification (rfc3588) defines multiple FAILED-AVP avp usage in a single diameter message.
Similar case is for Vendor-Specific-Application-Id AVP definition.
Previous specification allows multiple usage of Vendor-Id avp in a single message while the new specification defines it as a single mandatory AVP:
<Vendor-Specific-Application-Id> ::= < AVP Header: 260 >
1* [ Vendor-Id ]
0*1{ Auth-Application-Id }
0*1{ Acct-Application-Id }

<Vendor-Specific-Application-Id> ::= < AVP Header: 260 >
{ Vendor-Id }
[ Auth-Application-Id ]
[ Acct-Application-Id ]

How this facts applies to the sentence about fully backward compatibility in the section 1.1.3?

Report New Errata

Advanced Search