RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

RFC 3588, "Diameter Base Protocol", September 2003

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 6733

Source of RFC: aaa (ops)
See Also: RFC 3588 w/ inline errata

Errata ID: 773
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Alan McNamee
Date Reported: 2006-04-13
Verifier Name: Dan Romascanu
Date Verified: 2009-09-09

 

AVP Format

   <Vendor-Specific-Application-Id> ::=3D < AVP Header: 260 >
                                     1* [ Vendor-Id ]
                                     0*1{ Auth-Application-Id }
                                     0*1{ Acct-Application-Id }

Notes:

for 1* [ Vendor-Id ], is it required or optional?=20
In my understanding, [ ] represent "optional", which means allowing none =
of=20
this type AVP appear, but 1* means at least one needed, Is it =
inconsistent?
The same problem for 0*1{ Auth-Application-Id } and 0*1{ =
Acct-Application-Id }.

Can it is be issued as RFC bug for RFC errata?

from pending

Report New Errata