RE: Questions on modified Extended Attribute format?

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Glen Zorn
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 8:45 AM
> To: 'Alan DeKok'
> Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> 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
> "standard"
> > 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.
> [gwz]
> You keep saying that but I really don't know where you get 
> this funny idea.
> [/gwz]
> 

The current RADEXT charter is quite explicit about the requirements for
backwards compatibility. 

- All RADIUS work MUST be backward compatible with existing RADIUS 
RFCs,
including RFCs 2618-2621, 2865-2869, 3162, 3575, 3576, 3579, and 3580.

Dan

--
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/>