[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-radext-fixes
David B. Nelson <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> allegedly scribbled
on Monday, July 02, 2007 10:38 AM:
> 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 behavior.
> 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 subjective assessment.
OK, I'll bite: if nothing's broken, what are we fixing?
> 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?
I guess that depends upon how you define "interoperability". Anyway,
this could be easily accomplished w/o modifying legacy clients or
servers while nevertheless futureproofing the protocol (a good idea
unless we really believe that this is the last work that will ever be
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.