rfc4590

[Alexander Schrab]

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 at 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 at 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



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 3497 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freeradius.org/pipermail/freeradius-devel/attachments/20060916/ef6f7b03/attachment.bin>