eap Mailing List: Re: [Issue 249] Comments on EAP state machine v4

[Nick Petroni (npetroni]

Florent,

I very much appreciate your opinion on this, I tended to be an EAP
"purist" as well. However, given the widespread deployment of this
particular architecture, as well as the informational nature of this
document, I would like to propose we reject this issue. Furthermore, the
document is so late in its lifecycle I don't think it would be wise (or
possible?) to make such major changes.

Thanks for all of your comments, I am confident they will lead to a better
document.

nick

> Comment #19 - General
>
> Just a late and useless remark, I tend to dislike EAP being too much
> 802.1X centric: EAP is (or at least should be) media independent.
> Therefore, the problems implied by splitting the server side into an
> authenticator and an authentication server do probably not belong
> (originally) to EAP.
> Thus, for the sake of clarity, I would rather have had two separate
> documents: one for the EAP state machine (peer and standalone server)
> and for the  EAP state machines in case the server side is split (the
> split case is however also evoked in RFC 3748 - which I would also have
> avoided)...
>
>
> Florent, at least you know the reactions of naive reader while reading
> the EAP state machine ;-)
> _______________________________________________
> eap mailing list
> eap [at] frascone.com
> http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap
>