IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Emu] EAP and Fragmentation

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Fri, 15 March 2019 16:53 UTC

Return-Path: <aland@deployingradius.com>
X-Original-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CABBB12705F for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 09:53:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Od2EXdrxQuLN for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 09:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.networkradius.com (mail.networkradius.com [62.210.147.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BA6712D4EC for <emu@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 09:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.46.58] (198-84-237-221.cpe.teksavvy.com [198.84.237.221]) by mail.networkradius.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0A955713; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 16:53:53 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABe6AHgo3ejUx-C7qFe=U0N2nVJ-gEykMgPAQ1AmJeieoGkHRA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 12:53:52 -0400
Cc: John Mattsson <john.mattsson@ericsson.com>, "emu@ietf.org" <emu@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <43A7BC88-F475-43CF-AC7F-419CE6048FC4@deployingradius.com>
References: <B71DF50C-3735-4A38-BC64-1BBC0233AEF2@ericsson.com> <CABe6AHgo3ejUx-C7qFe=U0N2nVJ-gEykMgPAQ1AmJeieoGkHRA@mail.gmail.com>
To: slon v sobstvennom palto <slonvpalto@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/_OCyNWS1Ef9ukvIN7ZVP9_lp8pw>
Subject: Re: [Emu] EAP and Fragmentation
X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" <emu.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/emu>, <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/emu/>
List-Post: <mailto:emu@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu>, <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 16:53:59 -0000

On Mar 15, 2019, at 12:51 PM, slon v sobstvennom palto <slonvpalto@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >That is probably the correct behavior to standardize, i.e., something like
> >"Implementations MUST NOT set the L bit in unfragmented messages, but MUST accept unfragmented messages with and without the L bit set."
> 
> I'm for the strict approach. Anyway some implementations don't adhere it. The sentence above narrows the behaviour to a non-ambiguous while requires to support all kinds of existing behaviours thus it looks like the most exact form of the requirement. 

  I agree.

  Alan DeKok.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email