Subject: [eap] Proposed Resolution to Issue 243: State Synchronization

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 21:45:47 -0700 (PDT)

The proposed resolution is to change clause [4] of Section 2.2 to the
following:

[4]  Synchronization of state.  The EAP method state of the EAP peer and
     server must be synchronized when the EAP method completes
     successfully.  This includes the internal state of the
     authentication protocol but not the state external to the EAP
     method,  such as the negotiation occuring prior to initiation of
     the EAP method.  The exact state attributes that are shared may
     vary from method to method but typically include the method version
     number, what credentials were presented and accepted by both
     parties, what cryptographic keys are shared and what EAP method
     specific attributes were negotiated, such as ciphersuites and
     limitations of usage on all protocol state.  Both parties must be
     able to distinguish this instance of the protocol from all other
     instances of the protocol and they must share the same view of
     which state attributes are public and which are private to the two
     parties alone.
_______________________________________________
eap mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap

---

From: Florent Bersani <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 22:36:36 +0200

I understand what is meant but I feel concerned that "synchronization of 
state" may be understood as "common knowledge" (which is impossible to 
reach in a distributed environment with unreliable communications 
http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/halpern/papers/common_knowledge.pdf - 
using the paper's terminology page 5, what we want here is E or E2 but 
not C that we can't provide).

Though I tried I couldn't figure out some simple wording to reflect this 
(but I am still trying to).

Am I the only one that is uncomfortable with this wording?