From b0582c6963f6dc203f05ed810c9446cf3fa0f0ae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Anders Svensson Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 13:21:28 +0200 Subject: Let strict_mbit and incoming_maxlen be configured per transport Since these can make sense per peer. The remaining service-only options either belong there or make little sense being configured per transport. --- lib/diameter/doc/src/diameter.xml | 112 +++++++++++++++++++------------------- 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-) (limited to 'lib/diameter/doc/src') diff --git a/lib/diameter/doc/src/diameter.xml b/lib/diameter/doc/src/diameter.xml index 8d39b9efce..30a26ed845 100644 --- a/lib/diameter/doc/src/diameter.xml +++ b/lib/diameter/doc/src/diameter.xml @@ -826,19 +826,6 @@ field of diameter_packet records independently of - -{incoming_maxlen, 0..16777215} - -

-Bound on the expected size of incoming Diameter messages. -Messages larger than the specified number of bytes are discarded.

- -

-Defaults to 16777215, the maximum value of the 24-bit Message -Length field in a Diameter Header.

- -
- {restrict_connections, false | node | nodes @@ -974,49 +961,6 @@ of arity 1 as bare values, not wrapped in a list.

- -{strict_mbit, boolean()} - -

-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 true then such AVPs are regarded as 5001 errors, -DIAMETER_AVP_UNSUPPORTED. -If false then the M-bit is ignored and policing -it becomes the receiver's responsibility.

- -

-Defaults to true.

- - -

-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 AVP in a command grammar as any -AVP, regardless of M-bit, renders 1.3.4 meaningless, since the receiver -can simply ignore any AVP it thinks isn't relevant, regardless of the -sender's intent.

-

-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.

-
- -
- {string_decode, boolean()} @@ -1345,6 +1289,19 @@ connection.

Defaults to 5000.

+ +{incoming_maxlen, 0..16777215} + +

+Bound on the expected size of incoming Diameter messages. +Messages larger than the specified number of bytes are discarded.

+ +

+Defaults to 16777215, the maximum value of the 24-bit Message +Length field in a Diameter Header.

+ +
+ {length_errors, exit|handle|discard} @@ -1420,6 +1377,49 @@ Changing this results in non-standard behaviour, but can be useful in case peers are known to be behave badly.

+ +{strict_mbit, boolean()} + +

+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 true then such AVPs are regarded as 5001 errors, +DIAMETER_AVP_UNSUPPORTED. +If false then the M-bit is ignored and policing +it becomes the receiver's responsibility.

+ +

+Defaults to true.

+ + +

+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 AVP in a command grammar as any +AVP, regardless of M-bit, renders 1.3.4 meaningless, since the receiver +can simply ignore any AVP it thinks isn't relevant, regardless of the +sender's intent.

+

+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.

+
+ +
+ {transport_config, term()} {transport_config, term(), &dict_Unsigned32; | infinity} -- cgit v1.2.3