diff options
| author | Rickard Green <[email protected]> | 2017-03-13 18:41:05 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Rickard Green <[email protected]> | 2017-03-13 18:41:05 +0100 |
| commit | 7cb3d41d40dbe6d72c8d3f5724b62da088dbf189 (patch) | |
| tree | af00014f305c643b29d9abf69994ff118c348aa9 /lib/diameter/doc | |
| parent | f4e2345949400372e811ee0c4ceff3c7a689b720 (diff) | |
| parent | 3b72ab9407945eb7037c608ac2826b64ec17cdc6 (diff) | |
| download | otp-7cb3d41d40dbe6d72c8d3f5724b62da088dbf189.tar.gz otp-7cb3d41d40dbe6d72c8d3f5724b62da088dbf189.tar.bz2 otp-7cb3d41d40dbe6d72c8d3f5724b62da088dbf189.zip | |
Merge branch 'maint'
* maint:
Fix xml warnings in old release notes
Diffstat (limited to 'lib/diameter/doc')
| -rw-r--r-- | lib/diameter/doc/src/notes.xml | 25 |
1 files changed, 13 insertions, 12 deletions
diff --git a/lib/diameter/doc/src/notes.xml b/lib/diameter/doc/src/notes.xml index c2bbed2e5a..28d6ea4fd0 100644 --- a/lib/diameter/doc/src/notes.xml +++ b/lib/diameter/doc/src/notes.xml @@ -255,8 +255,8 @@ first.</p> Fix decode of Grouped AVPs containing errors.</p> <p> RFC 6733 says this of Failed-AVP in 7.5:</p> - <p> - <taglist><item><p><c> In the case where the offending AVP + + <taglist><tag></tag><item><p><c> In the case where the offending AVP is embedded within a Grouped AVP, the Failed-AVP MAY contain the grouped AVP, which in turn contains the single offending AVP. The same method MAY be employed if @@ -265,11 +265,11 @@ first.</p> the grouped AVP hierarchy up to the single offending AVP. This enables the recipient to detect the location of the offending AVP when embedded in a - group.</c></p></item></taglist></p> + group.</c></p></item></taglist> <p> It says this of DIAMETER_INVALID_AVP_LENGTH in 7.1.5:</p> - <p> - <taglist><item><p><c> The request contained an AVP with + + <taglist><tag></tag><item><p><c> The request contained an AVP with an invalid length. A Diameter message indicating this error MUST include the offending AVPs within a Failed-AVP AVP. In cases where the erroneous AVP length value @@ -284,7 +284,8 @@ first.</p> the minimum AVP header length, it is sufficient to include an offending AVP header that is formulated by padding the incomplete AVP header with zero up to the - minimum AVP header length.</c></p></item></taglist></p> + minimum AVP header length.</c></p></item></taglist> + <p> The AVPs placed in the errors field of a diameter_packet record are intended to be appropriate for inclusion in a @@ -949,8 +950,8 @@ first.</p> Be lenient with the M-bit in Grouped AVPs.</p> <p> RFC 6733 says this, in 4.4:</p> - <p> - <taglist><item><p><c>Receivers of a Grouped AVP that does + + <taglist><tag></tag><item><p><c>Receivers of a Grouped AVP that does not have the 'M' (mandatory) bit set and one or more of the encapsulated AVPs within the group has the 'M' (mandatory) bit set MAY simply be ignored if the Grouped @@ -958,14 +959,14 @@ first.</p> encapsulated AVP with its 'M' (mandatory) bit set is further encapsulated within other sub-groups, i.e., other Grouped AVPs embedded within the Grouped - AVP.</c></p></item></taglist></p> + AVP.</c></p></item></taglist> <p> The first sentence is mangled but take it to mean this:</p> - <p> - <taglist><item><p><c>An unrecognized AVP of type Grouped + + <taglist><tag></tag><item><p><c>An unrecognized AVP of type Grouped that does not set the 'M' bit MAY be ignored even if one of its encapsulated AVPs sets the 'M' - bit.</c></p></item></taglist></p> + bit.</c></p></item></taglist> <p> This is a bit of a non-statement since if the AVP is unrecognized then its type is unknown. We therefore don't |