On Nov 11, 2019, at 12:27 PM, Owen Friel (ofriel) <ofr...@cisco.com> wrote: > [ofriel] On reading RFC 7542 again, I certainly agree with the sentiment that > the NAI is recommended for EAP identity, but I don't see that actually being > explicitly definitively stated anywhere in the document.
The document recommend using NAI everywhere. Unfortunately it couldn't update EAP. >> It is absolutely not mentioned anywhere. For the simple reason that EAP >> provides for method negotiation. We don't need to overload the Identity >> field. > > [ofriel] then why does https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3748#section-5.1 > explicitly state " It is RECOMMENDED that the Identity Response be used > primarily for routing purposes and selecting which EAP method to use." > > It explicitly states: "selecting which EAP method to use " See the 3G specs, or Section 4 of RFC 7542 For instance, some EAP methods apply method-specific pseudonyms in the username part of the NAI [RFC3748]. > Should there be an errata for RFC 3748 to remove the last few words from that > sentence: "and selecting which EAP method to use"? I don't think so. > And the "EAP provides for method negotiation" is via Nak messages, Ok, then > my confusion was on the EAP method selection statement in section 5.1. EAP is unfortunately complex. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu