RE: 6rd attribute compromise?

[Jiangsheng <jiangsheng@huawei.com>]

OK, I will put the reserved byte back.

I will wait another two or three days in case there are other comments, then update a new version with the new TLVs. After that, softwire chair will probably launch the WGLC on both softwire and radext wg mail list. :)

Many thanks,

Sheng

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org]
> On Behalf Of Alan DeKok
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 3:00 PM
> To: Peter Deacon
> Cc: Jiangsheng; radiusext
> Subject: Re: 6rd attribute compromise?
> 
> Peter Deacon wrote:
> > Hi Jiangsheng, just included reserved /w ascii example to be a closer
> > match to the existing attribute format for prefix (RFC 3162 2.3)
> 
>   I agree with Peter here.  Leaving the reserved byte in place allows
> many RADIUS servers to use these new attributes with only a dictionary
> update.
> 
>   Deleting the reserved byte means that the IPv6 prefix for 6rd has a
> different format than for all other IPv6 prefix attributes.
> 
>   Alan DeKok.
> 
> --
> 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/>

--
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/>