I just wanted to make sure that the mail list had at least the basics of what I mentioned in the f2f today
1. The document does not appear to have an indicator that the EMSK was or was not used to generate a confirmation value. I have not done a final check that this is true but I did try and find it a couple of times 2. The flags on the outer packet need to be defined a bit better. a) is the S bit set only on the first fragment of the first message or on all fragments of the first message b) are the two length bits set only on the first message in a fragment sequence or can they be on any of the messages in a fragment sequence (but the values must then be the same in all fragment messages) c) Can the O bit be set only in the first piece of a fragment, or could it be in the last one without being in any previous one d) Should the L bit never be set on a non-fragmented message since it is redundant 3. There needs to be a signaling mechanism when running inner EAP messages to say that a) that this is a reliable transport and therefore there should be no-retries b) If a packet is dropped on the floor by somebody, then some type of signaling mechanism needs to be created to signal this to the other party. Also there should be text saying that re-sending the message does not necessarily make sense as the packet would probably just be re-dropped again c) There needs to be some type of policy on the server for what to do for either failing or continuing a validation - for example should a new EAP method be tried in this case. Jim _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
