On 5/16/2011 7:39 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: > > > I'd like to confirm my understanding. > > The current text proposes the use of eap type code 43. > > I'd like to confirm that code is in use both by implementations of > eap-fast v1 and v2.
I'm pretty sure that there are no implementations (except maybe in a lab somewhere) of EAP-FAST v2. > > Does the current text mandate support for eap-fast v1 as well as v2? > > Is it expected that most implementations will support v1 and v2? This question seems to assume an answer. There are 2 ways to look at the question: either the standard tunneled method is EAP-FAST v2 or it is v1 of itself (as yet unnamed -- I suggest "TEAM" ;-). > > Is it desired that people be able to create a v2 only implementation? See above, but my guess is that most vendors would prefer to be able to support the standard tunneled method without also supporting a proprietary tunneled method... > > I think based on answers to these questions I at least will be able to > better determine my opinion on the type code issue. > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > >
<<attachment: gwz.vcf>>
_______________________________________________ Emu mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
