| Re: Ordered delivery of EAP messages | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
|
From: Yoshihiro Ohba (yohba |
|
| Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 05:24:54 -0800 (PST) | |
Glen, On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:15:24PM -0800, Glen Zorn (gwz) wrote: > > My basic argument is that EAP _does_ work over a transport that doesn't > guarantee in-order delivery (the example being RADIUS) except in a deep, > dark, cobweb-filled corner case. The arguments have been that > "well-behaved" RADIUS implementations exhibit what amounts to in-order > delivery despite the fact that it is not required by the RFCs but badly > behaved EAP implementations will fail in a contrived, pathological case. > I am saying that a badly-behaved RADIUS implementation would fail in > that same pathological case and the converse. > Which case do you mean by "badly-behaved EAP implementations"? Yoshihiro Ohba
- Re: Ordered delivery of EAP messages, (continued)
- Re: Ordered delivery of EAP messages Avi Lior, March 7 2007
- Re: Ordered delivery of EAP messages Peter Deacon, March 7 2007
- Re: Ordered delivery of EAP messages Yoshihiro Ohba, March 7 2007
- Re: Ordered delivery of EAP messages Glen Zorn (gwz), March 7 2007
- Re: Ordered delivery of EAP messages Yoshihiro Ohba, March 8 2007
- Re: Ordered delivery of EAP messages Glen Zorn (gwz), March 8 2007
- TLS clarifications (Re: Ordered delivery of EAP messages) Lakshminath Dondeti, March 10 2007
- Re: TLS clarifications (Re: Ordered delivery of EAP messages) Yoshihiro Ohba, March 10 2007
- Re: TLS clarifications (Re: Ordered delivery of EAP messages) Lakshminath Dondeti, March 10 2007
Results generated by Tiger Technologies using MHonArc.