From b0582c6963f6dc203f05ed810c9446cf3fa0f0ae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Anders Svensson
-Bound on the expected size of incoming Diameter messages.
-Messages larger than the specified number of bytes are discarded.
-Defaults to
-Whether or not to regard an AVP setting the M-bit as erroneous when
-the command grammar in question does not explicitly allow the AVP.
-If
-Defaults to
-RFC 6733 is unclear about the semantics of the M-bit. -One the one hand, the CCF specification in section 3.2 documents AVP -in a command grammar as meaning any arbitrary AVP; on the -other hand, 1.3.4 states that AVPs setting the M-bit cannot be added -to an existing command: the modified command must instead be -placed in a new Diameter application.
-
-The reason for the latter is presumably interoperability:
-allowing arbitrary AVPs setting the M-bit in a command makes its
-interpretation implementation-dependent, since there's no
-guarantee that all implementations will understand the same set of
-arbitrary AVPs in the context of a given command.
-However, interpreting
-Beware of confusing mandatory in the sense of the M-bit with mandatory -in the sense of the command grammar. -The former is a semantic requirement: that the receiver understand the -semantics of the AVP in the context in question. -The latter is a syntactic requirement: whether or not the AVP must -occur in the message in question.
-+Bound on the expected size of incoming Diameter messages. +Messages larger than the specified number of bytes are discarded.
+ +
+Defaults to
+Whether or not to regard an AVP setting the M-bit as erroneous when
+the command grammar in question does not explicitly allow the AVP.
+If
+Defaults to
+RFC 6733 is unclear about the semantics of the M-bit. +One the one hand, the CCF specification in section 3.2 documents AVP +in a command grammar as meaning any arbitrary AVP; on the +other hand, 1.3.4 states that AVPs setting the M-bit cannot be added +to an existing command: the modified command must instead be +placed in a new Diameter application.
+
+The reason for the latter is presumably interoperability:
+allowing arbitrary AVPs setting the M-bit in a command makes its
+interpretation implementation-dependent, since there's no
+guarantee that all implementations will understand the same set of
+arbitrary AVPs in the context of a given command.
+However, interpreting
+Beware of confusing mandatory in the sense of the M-bit with mandatory +in the sense of the command grammar. +The former is a semantic requirement: that the receiver understand the +semantics of the AVP in the context in question. +The latter is a syntactic requirement: whether or not the AVP must +occur in the message in question.
+