| RE: [Issue 203] Comments on EAP-Peer state machine | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
|
From: Nick Petroni (npetroni |
|
| Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 07:06:01 -0600 (CST) | |
Hi Pasi, just one quick note- > - Item 5: it might check (reqId != lastReqId) (not "=="), > but I don't think this is necessary, since Success/Failure > are never retransmitted. It's still a violation of the protocol though for the packet to have the same ID as the previous one. I agree the change won't affect how one transitions in the state machine since eventually you will go to success anyway, but it seems if the identity were not new the packet should be discarded. Regards, nick
-
RE: [Issue 203] Comments on EAP-Peer state machine Pasi.Eronen, December 15 2003
- RE: [Issue 203] Comments on EAP-Peer state machine Nick Petroni, December 15 2003
-
RE: [Issue 203] Comments on EAP-Peer state machine Joseph Salowey, December 15 2003
- RE: [Issue 203] Comments on EAP-Peer state machine Nick Petroni, December 15 2003
-
RE: [Issue 203] Comments on EAP-Peer state machine Pasi.Eronen, December 16 2003
- RE: [Issue 203] Comments on EAP-Peer state machine Nick Petroni, December 16 2003
Results generated by Tiger Technologies using MHonArc.