[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Questions on modified Extended Attribute format?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Glen Zorn
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 8:45 AM
> To: 'Alan DeKok'
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: RE: Questions on modified Extended Attribute format?
> Glen Zorn wrote:
> > As I said, put that way or any other way you like, ANY change is
> > incompatible with existing deployments. If one were to add a new
> > attribute (in the old format or the proposed VSA-like format or any
> > other) it would be incompatible with existing deployments.
> That isn't the point. Everyone accepts that
> implementations have to be updated to handle new standards.
> One of the major efforts in RADIUS has been to maintain
> backwards compatibility with existing deployments.
> You keep saying that but I really don't know where you get
> this funny idea.
The current RADEXT charter is quite explicit about the requirements for
- All RADIUS work MUST be backward compatible with existing RADIUS
including RFCs 2618-2621, 2865-2869, 3162, 3575, 3576, 3579, and 3580.
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.