Subject: [eap] RFC-2284bis-07 Identity request

From: nagi reddy jonnala <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:56:03 +0100

I understand that RFC2284bis-07 Section 5.1 conflicts with the RFC2284
Section 3.1

See the text from 2284-bis.

"
      This field MAY contain a displayable message in the Request,
      containing UTF-8 encoded ISO 10646 characters [RFC2279].  Where
      the Request contains a null, only the portion of the field prior
      to the null is displayed.  If the Identity is unknown, the
      Identity Response field should be zero bytes in length.  The
      Identity Response field MUST NOT be null terminated.  In all
      cases, the length of the Type-Data field is derived from the
      Length field of the Request/Response packet.
"

See the text from 2284 Section 3.1 - Identity Type-Data field.

   "This field MAY contain a displayable message in the Request.  The
      Response uses this field to return the Identity.  If the Identity
      is unknown, this field should be zero bytes in length.  The field
      MUST NOT be null terminated.  The length of this field is derived
      from the Length field of the Request/Response packet and hence a
      null is not required."

Particularly, the last sentence (of 2284)  means that the Request cannot
have a NULL. I guess the intention was to recommend the use of length
rather than a NULL.

Though I don't have any objections to use the space after NULL,  I would
like to know if that causes any issues. At the same time, I propose to
explicitly mention the same thing in the 2284-bis.

Regards
Nagi.

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

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:32:51 +0200

We discussed this in issue 142, see

   http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/EAP/eapissues.html#Issue%20142

and the mail archives. The working group agreed at that time,
do we have some new information at this time that would make
us reconsider this? I'm not sure there is.

Having said that, I think Appendix A of RFC 2284bis is misleading
because it just talks about the ISO character set clarifications
in 5.1 and 5.2, but does not mention this issue. Perhaps we should
add the following text to Appendix A, right after the item that
talks about 5.1:

    o  The null character is forbidden in the Type-Data field of an
       Identity Response message, as it is in RFC 2284. But the this rule
       has been relaxed for Identity Requests, and it is now required
       that if the Type-Data field of an Identity Request contains a
       null character, only the part before the null is displayed.

Would this work for you?

--Jari

---

From: nagi reddy jonnala <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:52:21 +0100

Jari,

Yes, it is perfect if you add the text to Appendix A.

Thanks
Nagi

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:48:56 +0100

Jari, Nagi,

A version of the document (-08.a) updated according to the text below is
available at http://ietf.levkowetz.com/drafts/eap/rfc2284bis/. 

Jari,

I guess that formally we'll supply this as an RFC editor note during the
Author's 48 hours?

	Regards,
		Henrik