Subject: [Pana] FW: [issue112] 'M' flag clarification

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:34:28 +0200

Dan Forsberg <[email-masked]> added the comment:

Proposed text for issue112 ('M' flag clarification):

Change from (section 7.3 AVP Header):

      "M(andatory)

         The 'M' Bit, known as the Mandatory bit, indicates whether
         support of the AVP is required.

      V(endor)

         The 'V' bit, known as the Vendor-Specific bit, indicates
         whether the optional Vendor-Id field is present in the AVP
         header."

To: 

      "M(andatory)

         The 'M' Bit, known as the Mandatory bit, indicates whether
         support of the AVP is required.  If an AVP with the 'M' bit
         set is received by a PaC or PAA and either the AVP or its
         value is unrecognized, the message MUST be rejected.
 
         AVPs with the 'M' bit cleared are informational only and a
         receiver that receives a message with such an AVP that is not
         supported, or whose value is not supported, MAY simply ignore
         the AVP.

      V(endor)

         The 'V' bit, known as the Vendor-Specific bit, indicates
         whether the optional Vendor-Id field is present in the AVP
         header.  When set the AVP Code belongs to the specific
         vendor code address space."

Add to the end of section 7.3:

   "Unless otherwise noted, AVPs defined in this document will have the
   following default AVP Flags field settings:

         The 'M' bit MUST be set.  The 'V' bit MUST NOT be set.

   In case PaC or PAA receives an unknown AVP with 'M' bit set, the
   message MUST be discarded."

----------
status: Pending -> Text Proposed
___________________________________________________
PANA Issues <[email-masked]>
<http://danforsberg.info:8080/pana-issues/issue112>
___________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Pana mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 17:14:00 -0500

Hi Dan,

>    message MUST be discarded."

I think the last sentence is already mentioned in the M bit
definition and thus might not be needed here.

Yoshihiro Ohba