eap Mailing List: Issue 198: Other EAP Peer SM Issues

[Bernard Aboba (aboba]

Issue 198: Other EAP Peer SM issues
Submitter name: Ashwin Palekar
Submitter email address: ashwinp [at] microsoft.com
Date first submitted: Nov 11, 2003
Reference:
http://mail.frascone.com/pipermail/public/eap/2003-November/001831.html
Document: SM-01
Comment type: T
Priority: S
Section: 4
Rationale/Explanation of issue:

The IDENTITY method is independent of the method being negotiated. How do
we deal with the case where different methods require different
identities?

During EAP authentication sequences, the server can ask for different
identities for different eap methods  how does the client know which
identity it is supposed to provide?

clientTimeout  who is responsible for setting this? Is this set per
request, per eap host, or is it based on some other criteria?

eapTunnelled. Who sets this? It is not clear to me.

Does the SM behavior when eapTunnelled is set really correspond to that of
existing tunneled methods? I don't think so.

Is portEnabled condition generic enough? Can it apply to any media, such
as PPP?

Why do we have allowNotification condition? Whats the use case that a
specific eap method turns it on/off? Or is this an EAP setting?

Chapter 4.2, in methodState=Done, it says The method always continues at
this point. I think it should be ends instead.

This document only provides timeout and keys to application. In protocols
such as PEAP, other information is also returned such as EAP TLV.  So
perhaps the text on interfaces between EAP and methods should be clear
that this is extensible.