Subject: [eap] Proposed Resolution of Issue 132: Accept

From: [email-masked] (Bernard Aboba)
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 05:51:15 -0700 (PDT)

The text of Issue 132 is given below. This was extracted from one of
Pasi's comments on Issue 129.

I would like to recommend that the changes proposed in Issue 132 be
accepted. Any objections?

----------------------------------------------------------
Issue 132: Redundancy of Section 7.14
Submitter name: Pasi Eronen
Submitter email address: [email-masked]
Date first submitted: May 13, 2003
Reference:
Document: EAP-02
Comment type: T
Priority: S
Section: 7.14
Rationale/Explanation of issue:

I think we don't need Section 7.14 anymore. The
"strict interpretation" was very useful when it was possible
to switch from one method to another (and it was possible that
successful authorization result would require more than one
successful EAP method).

Now sequences are forbidden, and the "usual" ("non-strict")
processing rules specify the same behavior. E.g. 2.1 says that
the peer must silently discard requests for other types, and 4.2
deals with Success/Failure.

The only thing left is Notifications. I think this could be
dealt with in Section 5.2 by adding the following after the first
paragraph.

   "An EAP method MAY indicate within its specification that
   Notification messages must not be sent during that method.
   In this case, the peer MUST silently discard Notification
   Requests from the point where an initial Request for
   that Type is answered with a Response of the same Type."

(and by removing 7.14)

---

From: [email-masked] (Yoshihiro Ohba)
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 08:56:15 -0400

> accepted. Any objections?

I think this additional text would require a change in section 5.2 
from:

"The peer MUST respond to a Notification Request with a
Notification Response; a Nak Response MUST NOT be sent."

To:

"The peer MUST respond to a Notification Request with a Notification
Response unless the EAP authentication method specification prohibits
the use of Notification message.  In any case, a Nak Response MUST NOT
be sent in response to a Notification Request."

BTW, it is not clear to me whether RFC2284bis prohibits Notification
between methods or not __when methods are running inside a tunneling
method__.

Yoshihiro Ohba

> 
> (and by removing 7.14)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eap mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap
>

---

From: [email-masked] (Bernard Aboba)
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 09:32:05 -0700 (PDT)

> between methods or not __when methods are running inside a tunneling

I think that's up to the tunneling method to define.