| Re: Discrepancies between 802.1XREV and RFC 2248bis | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
|
From: Bernard Aboba (aboba |
|
| Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:45:51 -0500 (EST) | |
> Hi folks, > Yes, a reread of 6.7 leads me to believe that it could be confusing > to implementers. My opinion is that the current 6.7 was written before > there was a supplicant controlled port. With the addition of the > supplicant controlled port, the uni-directional nature of the transport > is no longer a blocking feature to a bi-directional EAP method. I agree (modulo the caveats in Section 2.4 of RFC 2284bis). > I believe the points we want to make in 6.7 are the following: This sounds like a good start. Do you want to draft some sample text for review?
-
Discrepancies between 802.1XREV and RFC 2248bis Bernard Aboba, January 19 2004
-
Re: Discrepancies between 802.1XREV and RFC 2248bis John Vollbrecht, January 19 2004
- Re: Discrepancies between 802.1XREV and RFC 2248bis Bernard Aboba, January 19 2004
-
Re: Discrepancies between 802.1XREV and RFC 2248bis Jim Burns, January 19 2004
- Re: Discrepancies between 802.1XREV and RFC 2248bis Bernard Aboba, January 19 2004
- Re: Discrepancies between 802.1XREV and RFC 2248bis Jim Burns, January 20 2004
- Strawman for a modified section 6.7 for IEEE 802.1XRev Jim Burns, January 21 2004
-
Re: Discrepancies between 802.1XREV and RFC 2248bis John Vollbrecht, January 19 2004
- Re: Discrepancies between 802.1XREV and RFC 2248bis Jari Arkko, January 21 2004
Results generated by Tiger Technologies using MHonArc.