RFC 4590

[Peter Nixon]

On Tue 14 Nov 2006 14:32, Alexander Schrab wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:
> > freeradius-devel-bounces+alexander.schrab=axis.com at lists.freer
> > adius.org
> > [mailto:freeradius-devel-bounces+alexander.schrab=axis.com at lis
> > ts.freeradius.org] On Behalf Of Philippe Sultan
> > Sent: den 14 november 2006 12:21
> > To: FreeRadius developers mailing list
> > Subject: Re: RFC 4590
> >
> >
> > Hi Peter, Alan,
> >
> > Alexander Schrab and I have been working on a patch that
> > allows to have both draft-sterman's and RFC 4590's attributes
> > handled by FreeRADIUS. http://bugs.freeradius.org/show_bug.cgi?id=391
> >
> > It is true that Ascend attributes conflict with the newly
> > defined RFC 4590 attributes, so that modifications are needed.
> >
> > However, I have been using this for more than a month along
> > with an OpenSER box (pre-RFC 4590) without problem. And and
> > believe Alex too.
>
> Yes I have, and in a very different context too I might add.
>
> > Maybe we can take the patch in bug #391 as a basis for the
> > future RFC 4590 implementation?
>
> I agree with Philippe, even when the new revision comes out, it is
> probably _very_ similar to the current RFC (if I understand it
> correctly, the only problem is the IANA numbers?).
> Starting the work of integrating the implementation me and Philippe has
> done and been using would be a great start as it is already tested in
> two very differnt context for several weeks. It would also allow others
> to implement and test any less subtle requirements of RFC4590 that are
> yet unimplemented in our patch.

OK. I have just read through the bug history.. Nice work.
What is the status of RFC 4590 implementation in SER and OpenSER? I am looking 
at doing a SER (or OpenSER) setup in the next few days and am not sure which 
one to pick..

Cheers

-- 

Peter Nixon
http://www.peternixon.net/
PGP Key: http://www.peternixon.net/public.asc