Comment on RFC ambiguity regarding application identifiers

It is tempting to regard remote support for the common application as
implicit, but that leads to the problems noted, and a node could never
then expect non-intersecting application support to result in 5010. It
probably can't anyway given the different ways the RFC's intent can be
interpreted, but it's not unreasonable that a node should be able to
advertise a single Diameter application and get 5010 if the peer doesn't
support it.

The problem we have currently is that peer selection is based on the
support advertised by the peer. The application id of an outgoing
request is used to lookup peers that have advertised support, so if the
peer hasn't advertised support for Diameter common messages then the
user won't be able to send DPR and more: diameter:call/4 will just
return {error, no_connection}. This commit doesn't solve the problem.

0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions