RE: Questions on modified Extended Attribute format?

["Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net>]

Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <mailto:dromasca@avaya.com> scribbled on Tuesday,
January 08, 2008 1:24 AM:

>> 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.  

Yup, very true.  That's not what Alan is requiring, however: "backwards
compatibility with existing deployments"
 
--------------------
is not at all the same thing as being backward compatible with the RFCs.
The proposal I'm making is not intended (nor, I believe, is it)
incompatible with the existing RFCs.

> 
> 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/>