Subject: [eap] Re: Issue 90: Simplify introduction

From: [email-masked] (Bernard Aboba)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 05:36:10 -0800 (PST)

There had been some confusion about the behavior of authenticators in
pass-through mode versus non-pass-through, and the clarification was added
to address that. Removing the clarification as requested in this
change seems like a bad idea since it would cause the specification to
again become ambiguous.

Comments?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 90: Simplify Introduction
Submitter name: John Vollbrecht
Submitter email address: [email-masked]
Date first submitted: March 3, 2003
Document: EAP-01
Comment type: Technical
Priority: S
Section: 1
Rationale/Explanation of issue:
change wording from middle of 3rd paragraph from:
"Rather than requiring the authenticator to be updated to support each
new authentication method, EAP permits the use of a backend
authentication server which may implement some or all authentication
methods, with the authenticator acting as a pass-through for some or
all methods and users.

Within this document, authenticator requirements apply regardless of
whether the authenticator is operating as a pass-through or not.
Where the requirement is meant to apply to either the authenticator
or backend authentication server, depending on where the EAP
authentication"

to:
"Rather than requiring the authenticator to be updated to support each
new authentication method, EAP permits the authenticator to use a
backend server to do the actual authentication method."

---

From: [email-masked] (Henrik Levkowetz)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:27:23 +0100

On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 05:36:10 -0800 (PST)

> change seems like a bad idea since it would cause the specification to

	I would prefer to keep the text as is. I find it clear, it
reads well, and it makes it easy to continue into the document with
the understanding that both non-pass-through and pass-through operation
exist.

	Henrik

> _______________________________________________
> eap mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap

	Henrik

-- 
Error message in Haiku form:

  Stay the patient course
  Of little worth is your ire
  The network is down

    -- David Ansel

---

From: [email-masked] (John Vollbrecht)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 21:26:00 -0500

I think the discussion of pass thru and non pass thru builds the idea the 
two are somehow different.  I don't think this is an important distinction 
for this document, and therefore think it should not be emphasized.  I 
continue to think this change should be made.  Perhaps we need to have more 
discussions on how important the distinction actually is.

John

--On Thursday, March 6, 2003 3:27 PM +0100 Henrik Levkowetz 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> > pass-through mode versus non-pass-through, and the clarification was
> > added to address that. Removing the clarification as requested in this

---

From: [email-masked] (Henrik Levkowetz)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:40:11 +0100

The way I see it, one important function of an introduction is to
establish the *context* of the subject matter. Although operation in
pass-through or not should be indistinguishable to the peer, it is very
much a central part of the internal architecture of EAP implementations
(if I've understood it all correctly :), and an awareness of this is
essential to easy understanding of the rest of the document. Mentioning
this here is a way to 'set the stage' so to speak, for the detailed
description that follows. Not mentioning it would be to leave an
essential part of the context out, making for a tougher read of the
remainder of the document.

	Henrik.

On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 21:26:00 -0500

	Henrik

-- 
  Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors -- 
  and miss.