There is actually an error in RFC 4590! Part of the problem was mine (I
mixed up response and response-auth). But in the table the response-auth
(107) comes after nextnonce (106). In the description (which I looked
at) of the attributes they are reversed. The correct order ccording to
IANA is the one in the table.
I wonder if the authors are aware of the problem.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Alexander Schrab
> Sent: den 21 september 2006 07:49
> To: Developer support list for Wireshark
> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] New radius attributes (RFC 4590)
>
>
> I am sorry for that mistake, I guess I was to eager. Anyhow,
> now you are aware of thenew RFC :)
>
> /Alex
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Jaap Keuter
> > Sent: den 20 september 2006 16:28
> > To: Developer support list for Wireshark
> > Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] New radius attributes (RFC 4590)
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Too bad, since the patch doesn't match RFC 4590 table 2.
> > Care to fix it?
> >
> > Thanx,
> > Jaap
> >
> > On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Joerg Mayer wrote:
> >
> > > > Did anyone fix this?
> > >
> > > Committed revision 19266.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Joerg
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wireshark-dev mailing list
> > Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wireshark-dev mailing list
> Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
>
