I think this approach may be better than trying to do the re-negotiations
inside of the TEAP and probably merits about 2 sentences in the document.
Jim
> -Original Message-
> From: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) [mailto:jsalo...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 9:44 AM
> To: Jim Sc
I think that picks up all of my current comments. Looking forward to seeing
the draft update.
Jim
From: Hao Zhou (hzhou) [mailto:hz...@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 11:15 AM
To: Jim Schaad
Cc: emu@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Emu] Review of draft-ietf-emu-eap-tunnel-method-00
I think an optional length of Outer TLV field (controlled by the flag bit)
would be preferable.
On 10/9/12 7:37 PM, "Jim Schaad" wrote:
>I would be really against the idea that I needed to crack the TLS data
>blob
>to figure this out. Either adding a length for the TLS data field, or a
>length
