eap Mailing List: Re: Issue 378: Network Selection Comments

[Bernard Aboba (Bernard_Aboba]

 [Bari, Farooq] Propose to change the first sentence as follows

This refers to selection of the realm of an operator/ISP in order to
access the network.

[BA] The problem is that the realm need not necessarily be provided by the
operator/ISP.  It could be a corporate realm, for example.   So you might
just say either "selection of the realm used to access the network" or
"selection of the operator/ISP used for network access".  The problem is
that I don't know which is meant here -- and they are different. 

 
[Bari, Farooq] In issue 376 response we agreed to add a new section on
scalability in current section 4. I am not sure if this needs to be
added in section 2. The comment about RFC 4284 behavior does not seem to
be correct - my understanding is that the realms are not always
advertised to the client.

[BA] Right -- realms may not always be advertised.  But the issue occurs
when they need to be.  Glen's point was that RFC 4284 dumps the realm table,
most of which the client won't be able to use.  In contrast, a
request/response protocol would only return those realms that the client
indicates that it can access.  This is not only more efficient, but also
potentially addresses security concerns about exposing the realm table to
non-authorized users.