RE: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-radext-fixes

["David B. Nelson" <dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com>]

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.

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 radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>