Subject: RFC 3588 errata discussion

From: "MCG WANG Hengjing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 10:12:33 +0800

Hi,

  I am confused at the definition in RFC3588(Diameter)

   AVP Format

   <Vendor-Specific-Application-Id> ::= < AVP Header: 260 >
                                     1* [ Vendor-Id ]
                                     0*1{ Auth-Application-Id }
                                     0*1{ Acct-Application-Id }
for  1* [ Vendor-Id ], is it required or optional? 
In my understanding, [ ] represent "optional", which means allowing none of 
this type AVP appear, but 1* means at least one needed, Is it inconsistent?
The same problem for 0*1{ Auth-Application-Id } and  0*1{ Acct-Application-Id }.

Can it is be issued as RFC bug for RFC errata? Thanks!

Best Regards, 
WANG Hengjing  
==========================================
Alcatel Shanghai  Bell Co., Ltd.,
Tel: +86 21 3605 4510*6156
E-Mail: <mailto:[email-masked]>
Address: 525 North XiZang Rd.,520-8F,Shanghai
Zip: 200070
==========================================