| RE: [Issue 203] Comments on EAP-Peer state machine | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
|
From: Nick Petroni (npetroni |
|
| Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 01:29:05 -0600 (CST) | |
Hi Joe, > > - Item 5: it might check (reqId != lastReqId) (not "=="), > > but I don't think this is necessary, since Success/Failure > > are never retransmitted. > > [Joe] I've lost the context to this, but I thought that EAP-Success and > EAP-Failure had the same ID as the previous request and response. From > 2284bis Section 4.2: > > "Identifier > > The Identifier field is one octet and aids in matching replies to > Responses. The Identifier field MUST match the Identifier field > of the Response packet that it is sent in response to." Sorry, I lead us down the wrong path. I misunderstood how this works. I am still confused why it works this way, but either way you are correct -- the Success should match the last Request/Response ID. 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
- Re: [Issue 203] Comments on EAP-Peer state machine Yoshihiro Ohba, December 16 2003
- RE: [Issue 203] Comments on EAP-Peer state machine Joseph Salowey, December 16 2003
Results generated by Tiger Technologies using MHonArc.