Subject: [eap] Re: deciding which NAI to send in an ID-RESPONSE

From: [email-masked] (Bernard Aboba)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 10:12:52 -0700 (PDT)

> We could (1) ignore such practise and pretend it doesn't exist or (2)
> change the definition to say that there may be a null, after which
> the Displayable Message ends a Non-Displayble message begins ;-)

Well, there apparently are some people who care about this and want to use
it for something. Perhaps if they spoke up we could determine what to do.

Off the top of my head, I would think that an Appendix describing what is
currently done might be appropriate. It also might make sense to have an
IANA registry for the parameters so that interoperability is possible.
On the other hand, I could also see handling this issue in a separate
draft if it is determined that the effort to specify this is significant
(and RFC 2284bis might be delayed).

---

From: [email-masked] (Jari Arkko)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 22:08:04 +0300

> (and RFC 2284bis might be delayed).

Yes. If we want to find something in between, one approach would be
to define that there may be a null character which terminates the
Displayable Message, and that the contents beyond that are implementation
specific. This would at least warn people not to go beyond the null,
and leave the possibility for later to document the contents of
that field.

--Jari