Hi Lionel,
It is not to define two types of ABNF. It is to define the Result-Code AVP and Failed-AVP AVP as optional AVPs of the PANA-Auth-Answer and PANA-Termination-Answer messages. I was proposing to reuse the 'E' bit just to characterize error answers if needed, as a hint. About complexity, do you mean that it is easier for the implementation to parse a Notification message to find the optional Failed-Message-Header AVP to find the message that causes the error?
The use of error notification maybe a little more simple for implementation processing because that single message can be treated as a catch all event or interruption as oppose to having a few more additional conditions testing for errors in every other incoming answer messages. In that sense, unifying error notification to a single message has some advantages.
best regards, victor _______________________________________________ Pana mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana
