[Rps] Re: Last Call: 'RPSLng' to Proposed Standard

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.