[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-radext-fixes
Glen Zorn writes...
> I've never actually understood this contention. If these are actually
> issues with and fixes for the RADIUS protocol, then it would seem to me
> that the last thing you would want is to be backwards compatible with
> something that's broken. If the behavior is broken, then change the
Is it broken? Or just sub-optimal? Years of interoperability in the field
tend to indicate that it's not "broken" in terms of interoperability. I
guess it depends on how one defines "broken". I've often found that to be a
Assuming the RADEXT charter allowed us to make non-backwards compatible
changes, wouldn't that require some sort of protocol version field in order
to promote interoperability?
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.