[Rps] Re: Last Call: 'RPSLng' to Proposed Standard
Tue Sep 16 14:39:55 CEST 2003
Curtis Villamizar wrote: > Since there is no version negotiation, we'd need a new set of queries > with version negotiation. The old set could be assumed to be the old > versions. > Well the obvious question to ask is why not add it (version negotiation that is). This would require some codification of the exchange between a client and a server but wouldn't this be a good thing anyway? > The next issue is you'd need a reliable means to translate the new > format into the old. This does constrain the syntax somewhat, but > would allow ipv4,ipv6 policy to be specified and just the ipv4 part > returned to the old query. > Ah but would an organisation using an old client write new syntax objects anyway? > This boild down to just a "small matter of code". RtConfig is open > source. Would you like to contribute the changes? :-) > Given my lack of C++ skills (combined with my lack of gcc v2 compiler) I'm not sure I would be too helpful in that regard :-) However I guess I would be happy to assist updating RFC 2650. Mark.
[ rpslng Archive ]