eap Mailing List: Re: Ordered delivery of EAP message

[Bernard Aboba (bernard_aboba]

Glen Zorn said:

"I expect that any implementation that would fall prey to Pasi's 
pathological example would be badly behaved."

Please remember that the original EAP implementations were created for PPP, 
which provides for in-order delivery.  As a result, those implementations 
did not have a need to keep a duplicate cache as recommended in RFC 2865.  
Given this, you cannot conclude that an implementation that would not detect 
a duplicate mingled with a new transmission would be badly behaved.  Those 
implementations were legal under RFC 2284, and they remain legal within RFC 
3748, which is why there is no language in RFC 3748 indicating that they 
would be "badly behaved".

This is not an accident, and it is not something that should be "fixed".  It 
was a decision made by the EAP WG after very extensive discussion documented 
on the mailing list.