{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/fiorix/go-diameter/issues/23","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/fiorix/go-diameter/issues/23/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/fiorix/go-diameter/issues/23/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/fiorix/go-diameter/issues/23/events","html_url":"https://github.com/fiorix/go-diameter/issues/23","id":99193206,"number":23,"title":"Problem having vendor specific AVP with an existing AVP code","user":{"login":"taseppa","id":2930680,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2930680?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/taseppa","html_url":"https://github.com/taseppa","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/taseppa/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/taseppa/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/taseppa/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/taseppa/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/taseppa/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/taseppa/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/taseppa/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/taseppa/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/taseppa/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":7,"created_at":"2015-08-05T12:25:21Z","updated_at":"2015-08-06T08:02:33Z","closed_at":null,"body":"According to RFC:\r\n\"The AVP Code, combined with the Vendor-Id field, identifies the  attribute uniquely.\"\r\n\r\nBut currently I seem to have some parsing problems if you use a vendor specific AVP with a code that already exists. At least in avp/codes.go this looks a bit odd:\r\n\r\ndictAVP, err := dictionary.FindAVP(application, a.Code)\r\n\r\nBecause the FindAVP doesn't take vendorId as parameter."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/fiorix/go-diameter/issues/comments/128284250","html_url":"https://github.com/fiorix/go-diameter/issues/23#issuecomment-128284250","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/fiorix/go-diameter/issues/23","id":128284250,"user":{"login":"jaroszan","id":4745720,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4745720?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/jaroszan","html_url":"https://github.com/jaroszan","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jaroszan/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jaroszan/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jaroszan/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jaroszan/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jaroszan/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jaroszan/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jaroszan/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jaroszan/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jaroszan/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-08-06T08:02:33Z","updated_at":"2015-08-06T08:02:33Z","body":"In the workaround you are creating separate dictionary if you have duplicates. I have tested in by modifying your example, but I don't know what use case you are basing it on (still I see your point in this very simplified example)\r\n\r\nIf you can supply the whole test case it would be possible to say what can work in your particular case. Do you have some real life example when IANA AVP codes overlap with codes in vendor specific namespace?\r\n\r\n"}}