[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Consensus call and conclusion of RADEXT WG last call on draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-00.txt
Glen Zorn wrote:
> Alan, I really wish that you could say something about this w/o frothing
> at the mouth. In fact, this paragraph was just left in _by mistake_
I'm sorry I can't tell intent from the content of the draft.
> from my changes that introduced the (obviously excellent to me,
> apparently akin to heretical to you) idea of allowing the extended and
> legacy typespaces to overlap.
I have no objection to them overlapping. It's a *good* idea for them
to overlap. I just don't know what it means to allow old-style
attributes in a new-style format.
> If that was the case, one would obviously
> need to be able to determine if type 29 was legacy type 29 or new type
> 29. In any case, I gave up the battle for sanity in this WG some time
> ago, so you can stop: one will never be able to group legacy RADIUS
> attributes, nor have more than one instance > 255 octets in length in a
> single message. Happy?
Never. RADIUS is a horrible protocol with huge amounts of legacy
cruft. I am very wary of breaking existing systems, no matter how
appealing the idea may seem.
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.