[erlang-questions] Documentation error in Diameter AVP specification?

[Anders Svensson]

Is this with an R14 diameterc? R15B diameterc should accept both
"Diameter-Header" and "Diameter Header".

RFC 3588 is inconsistent in its usage, specifying "Diameter-Header" in
the ABNF but "Diameter Header" in all of its command definitions. The
current draft RFC fixes this.

/Anders, Erlang/OTP Ericsson



RFC 3588 uses the former in its ABNF but the latter in all of its
command definitions

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Jeroen Koops <koops.j@REDACTED> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In the documentation for the Diameter dict-file format,
> at http://www.erlang.org/doc/man/diameter_dict.html, it says, under the
> @messages tag:
>
>> Defines the messages of the application. The section content consists of
>> definitions of the form specified in
>> section 3.2 of RFC 3588, "Command Code ABNF specification".
>
> The examples given show a diameter specified as follows: < Diameter Header:
> 287, REQ, PXY >
>
> However, RFC3588 specifies that a header should be specified as:
>
>     header = "<" Diameter-Header:" command-id [r-bit] [p-bit] [e-bit]
> [application-id]">"
>
> Note the dash in Diameter-Header. Using a dash in a .dia file causes an
> error when compiling the file with diameterc, so it seems that diameterc
> does not completely follow RFC3588.
>
> Am I misunderstanding something here, or is this a bug for which I can
> submit a patch? The best patch I can think of is to modify diameterc in such
> a way that both 'Diameter-Header' and 'Diameter Header' are accepted, with a
> note in the document saying that 'Diameter Header' is accepted but
> deprecated. An easier patch would jus add a note to the documentation
> pointing out the difference with the RFC.
>
>
> --
> Jeroen Koops
>
> M: koops.j@REDACTED
> T: +31-6-55590300
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>