Well, the thing is that my patch only replaces the attributes from the draft version. So it's an either or situation. It seems like the draft version has some momentum already, but the rfc should really be the way to go (no strange subattributes and such). It's more of a political decision, should freeradius suppotr only the rfc, only the draft or both? Maybe you can point me in the direction of the people/person who made the digest module? /Alex -----Original Message----- From: freeradius-devel-bounces+alexander.schrab=axis.com@lists.freeradius.org [mailto:freeradius-devel-bounces+alexander.schrab=axis.com@lists.freerad ius.org] On Behalf Of Alan DeKok Sent: den 14 september 2006 17:34 To: FreeRadius developers mailing list Subject: Re: rfc4590 "Alexander Schrab" <Alexander.Schrab@axis.com> wrote:
I have been looking at the rfc 4590 (http digest) and done some tests with freeradius. As I userstand it implements a similar but uncompatible draft. Is anyone looking into this issue?
No.
I have done a quick-n-dirty patch against 1.1.3 to support the attributes defined in rfc4590, but I havn't looked into it in more detail.
Sure, submit a patch on bugs.freeradius.org. Alan DeKok. -- http://deployingradius.com - The web site of the book http://deployingradius.com/blog/ - The blog - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/devel.html
"Alexander Schrab" <Alexander.Schrab@axis.com> wrote:
Well, the thing is that my patch only replaces the attributes from the draft version. So it's an either or situation. It seems like the draft version has some momentum already, but the rfc should really be the way to go (no strange subattributes and such).
There's no harm in having both.
It's more of a political decision, should freeradius suppotr only the rfc, only the draft or both? Maybe you can point me in the direction of the people/person who made the digest module?
That was me. I haven't looked at RFC 4590, but if the old digest attributes can be modified to look like the new ones, that would appear to be a solution. i.e. authorize: if old-style, re-format, and make check items as old authenticate: do new-style. If check item is marked as old, send response in old format. Alan DeKok. -- http://deployingradius.com - The web site of the book http://deployingradius.com/blog/ - The blog
That sounds like a good idea. Basically the only thing my patch does is remove the old coverting code and renumbering the attributes. But it should be possible to do both.... I'll look into it when I get back to work on monday /Alex -----Original Message----- From: freeradius-devel-bounces+alexander.schrab=axis.com@lists.freeradius.org on behalf of Alan DeKok Sent: Fri 9/15/2006 4:34 PM To: FreeRadius developers mailing list Cc: Subject: Re: rfc4590 "Alexander Schrab" <Alexander.Schrab@axis.com> wrote:
Well, the thing is that my patch only replaces the attributes from the draft version. So it's an either or situation. It seems like the draft version has some momentum already, but the rfc should really be the way to go (no strange subattributes and such).
There's no harm in having both.
It's more of a political decision, should freeradius suppotr only the rfc, only the draft or both? Maybe you can point me in the direction of the people/person who made the digest module?
That was me. I haven't looked at RFC 4590, but if the old digest attributes can be modified to look like the new ones, that would appear to be a solution. i.e. authorize: if old-style, re-format, and make check items as old authenticate: do new-style. If check item is marked as old, send response in old format. Alan DeKok. -- http://deployingradius.com - The web site of the book http://deployingradius.com/blog/ - The blog - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/devel.html
Ok, have a look at this. It works with both the old style and new style of digest. /Alexander On Fri, 2006-09-15 at 10:34 -0400, Alan DeKok wrote:
"Alexander Schrab" <Alexander.Schrab@axis.com> wrote:
Well, the thing is that my patch only replaces the attributes from the draft version. So it's an either or situation. It seems like the draft version has some momentum already, but the rfc should really be the way to go (no strange subattributes and such).
There's no harm in having both.
It's more of a political decision, should freeradius suppotr only the rfc, only the draft or both? Maybe you can point me in the direction of the people/person who made the digest module?
That was me.
I haven't looked at RFC 4590, but if the old digest attributes can be modified to look like the new ones, that would appear to be a solution. i.e.
authorize: if old-style, re-format, and make check items as old authenticate: do new-style. If check item is marked as old, send response in old format.
Alan DeKok.
-- http://deployingradius.com - The web site of the book http://deployingradius.com/blog/ - The blog - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/devel.html
participants (2)
-
Alan DeKok -
Alexander Schrab