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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 > > [email protected] > > http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > Wireshark-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev > _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
