RE: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-radext-fixes

["Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <gwz@cisco.com>]

David B. Nelson <mailto:dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com> 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
needed).

--
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/>