Re: Suggested extension

Peter Eriksson <pen@lysator.liu.se> Tue, 01 December 1992 00:44 UTC

Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1992 01:45:06 -0000
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Peter Eriksson <pen@lysator.liu.se>
To: Mike StJohns <stjohns@umd5.umd.edu>
Cc: ident@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Subject: Re: Suggested extension
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 30 Nov 92 19:28:54 -0500
Message-Id: <CMM.0.90.0.723170706.pen@robert.lysator.liu.se>

Mike writes:

> WRT changes - one thing I noted was how non-backwards compatible the
> two changes proposed were.  You might want to try re-working them --
> or better yet, junk the current protocol and use something that's
> binary or based on ASN.1 and can be designed to be expandable.  Or
> even better, use the MIB.

That I don't understand... In what way is it non-backwards compatible?
A normal client still sends the normal <port#>, <port#> pair and get
the same old reply.. It's just the special clients that send an
extended request. And, yes, I have tried it and it works just fine. 

I don't think it would be any better just by using binary. I'll
grant you that it's not all that elegant as to the extendability
question.

Perhaps a query like: "42 , 4711 : REMOTE : 130.236.254.22 , xyzzy"
would be a better choice... (With the ", <password>" part optional)
Hmm..

Anyway, is the IDENT mailing list an apropriate forum for discussions of
extensions to the IDENT protocol or should I take that somewhere else?

/Peter

Peter Eriksson                                              pen@lysator.liu.se
Lysator Academic Computer Society                 ...!uunet!lysator.liu.se!pen
University of Linkoping, Sweden                I'm still bored. Flame me again.

Suggested extension Peter Eriksson
Re: Suggested extension Peter Eriksson
Re: Suggested extension James M Galvin
Re: Suggested extension Peter Eriksson
Re: Suggested extension Mike StJohns
Re: Suggested extension Peter Eriksson
Re: Suggested extension Ned Freed
Re: Suggested extension Peter Eriksson