Subject: [Pana] Notification AVP

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 16:33:44 -0400

Currently the 'M' bit of PANA AVP header is set for all AVPs defined
in the PANA specification.

On the other hand, some AVP could be defined with the 'M' bit unset.

Notification AVP is one (and only one?) such AVP.  The Notification
AVP contains displayable message, since the receiver of this AVP can
just ignore it.

Any opinion?

Yoshihiro Ohba

_______________________________________________
Pana mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana

---

From: Victor Fajardo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:57:08 -0400

Hi Ohba,

Though I have no strong opinion about this it migth be better to leave
the 'M' bit spec as is to give some flexibility to future AVPs as well
as keep AVP validity checking/indicator scheme.

-- victor

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:22:48 -0400

> as keep AVP validity checking/indicator scheme.

What do you mean by "flexibility to future AVPs" and "AVP validity
checking/indicator scheme"?

Yoshihiro Ohba

---

From: Victor Fajardo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 20:02:38 -0400

Hi,

>checking/indicator scheme"?
flexibility in the case that maybe future AVPs will behave similar to
Notification AVP where the 'M' bit can be unset and validity checking in
the case that if the 'M', PANA-Error-Message indication can be sent by
the offended party if the AVP or its content is unknown.

-- victor

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 22:53:49 -0400

It looks like you are suggesting that the 'M' bit for Notification AVP 
MAY be set, instead of "MUST be set" or "MUST NOT be set".  

Is this correct?

Yoshihiro Ohba

On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:02:38PM -0400, Victor Fajardo wrote:
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
> ______________________________________________________________________

---

From: Victor Fajardo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 08:53:22 -0400

Hi Ohba,

>MAY be set, instead of "MUST be set" or "MUST NOT be set".  
In some sense yes. I'm leaning more towards "should be" just to provide
some error check on the AVP though it may not be necessary since the AVP
can be ignored anyway.

-- victor