topic Re: First UTC, now ETA? Let's bring estimated dates to KB "Fix" announcements in General Discussion

First UTC, now ETA? Let's bring estimated dates to KB "Fix" announcements

Raul_Carbonari — Tue, 30 Jun 2026 12:42:56 GMT

There has always been text stating "Fix will be on X.x release/version" as the "Resolution" in KB articles.

Lately, however, this has been particularly frustrating. If a fix has already been designated for version X.x, it means there has been communication with the development team, and there is a likely release date associated with it that is being deliberately omitted.

I understand that these dates are not set in stone and can be pushed back, but having a general idea of how long we will have to live with a specific bug or behavior is much better than being left in limbo. Since I understand project management models based on Agile methodologies, I don't think I'm asking for anything that is out of reach.

Just today, I came across two articles with the exact same response: "Fix will be on 25.13 release."

Extreme UI information discrepancies https://extreme-networks.my.site.com/ExtrArticleDetail?an=000137194
Some disconnected APs on XIQ still are showing online https://extreme-networks.my.site.com/ExtrArticleDetail?an=000137189

So, my question is: what is the tentative or estimated release date for version 25.13?

I’ve already managed to get XIQ update announcements expressed in UTC; can we now get an estimated target date included whenever a KB article states "will fix in..."?

Community: Wish me luck!

Moderators: Over to you now. 😉

Raúl

Re: First UTC, now ETA? Let's bring estimated dates to KB "Fix" announcements

Brent_Addis — Wed, 01 Jul 2026 21:57:54 GMT

An easy fix would be aligning release numbers with year / month.

IE 26.7 would be July 2006.

Re: First UTC, now ETA? Let's bring estimated dates to KB "Fix" announcements

Raul_Carbonari — Thu, 02 Jul 2026 11:42:55 GMT

Some updates:

Surprisingly, during my (almost) daily review of KB articles—yes, it might be a bit of madness, and even for my friends at GTAC, I’m probably a nightmare—I stumbled upon a KB that perfectly illustrates the exact goal of this crusade:

Wifi Clients Get in Wrong VLAN After Accepting Guest-Portal Page when connecting via Enhanced Open SSID[XIQ] https://extreme-networks.my.site.com/ExtrArticleDetail?an=000134096

"Engineering team has marked the fix target with XIQ release 25.13.0 which has an estimated release date starting the 3rd week of July 2026."

Kudos to whoever wrote that! 👏

Paradoxically, another article published today needs a bit more attention:

XIQ - Adding the 3rd Radius server (accounting only) return error "The server role for "Authentication" is not valid because it is not in sequential order." https://extreme-networks.my.site.com/ExtrArticleDetail?an=000137229

"Upgrade to XIQ 25.10.0 or later to permanently resolve this issue."

Here we have two conflicts: the lack of an estimated date (the core reason for my original post) and a rather glaring conceptual error. First, there is no way for an end-user to manually upgrade XIQ; that is entirely dictated by the deployment schedule defined by Extreme itself. Second, this article was updated today (though I assume it already existed), and we are already on version 25.11. If it had originally included an estimated date, this part of the article wouldn't look so awkward now.

I understand that those responsible for writing KB articles come from multiple departments (GTAC, Engineering, etc.) and that the style or depth of the content will vary. However, my goal with these comments is to help raise the bar for the information provided, ensuring it is truly useful for everyone. I know it’s a slow, drop-by-drop process, but I also know how incredibly helpful this can be for all of us down the road.

Raúl Carbonari