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

Jeroen Koops <>
Thu Mar 15 14:58:44 CET 2012


OK, you convinced me.... upgrading to R15 *now*!

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Anders Svensson <>wrote:

> R15B diameterc also has a major advantage in that it emits useful
> error messages that point at the offending input line. Earlier
> versions just crashed and it could be quite difficult to figure out
> why.
>
> /Anders, Erlang/OTP Ericsson
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Jeroen Koops <> wrote:
> > Yes, it's R14B03 -- so for now I'll just do nothing, move to R15, or wait
> > for RFC3588bis to become current. Thanks all!
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Anders Svensson <>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> 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 <>
> 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: 
> >> > T: +31-6-55590300
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > erlang-questions mailing list
> >> > 
> >> > http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
> >> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jeroen Koops
> >
> > M: 
> > T: +31-6-55590300
> >
>



-- 
Jeroen Koops

M: 
T: +31-6-55590300
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20120315/92c8a998/attachment.html>


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list