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

[Florent Bersani (florent.bersani]

I unfortunately agree with this rejection for obvious pragmatic reasons

Nick Petroni wrote:

> 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
> >
> >    
>
>
>
>