Hao,
The idea that I thought you had presented would not make it a very
complicated item.
1. Change the specification so that multiple Request TLVs are permitted to
occur in the TLV sequence.
2. Change to specification so that the Request TLV item now looks like
M|R|TLV Type | Length |
Status | TLV sequence
The TLV Sequence is the set of TLV items to be processed for that sequence
code.
Then need some oddball text to the effect that:
Two Request TLVs MUST NOT occur in the message if they have the same Status
value.
The order of processing multiple Request TLVs is implementation dependent.
If the server process the optional (non-fatal) items first, it is possible
that the fatal items will disappear at a later time. If the server process
the fatal items first, the communication time will be shorter.
The client MAY return a new set of Request TLV items after one or more of
the requested items has been processed and the server has signaled it wants
to end the EAP conversation.
Jim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: emu-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:emu-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Hao Zhou
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 4:29 AM
> To: Jim Schaad; draft-ietf-emu-eap-tunnel-met...@tools.ietf.org
> Cc: emu@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Emu] Multiple Request Action Items
>
> Jim:
>
> Good question. The current draft allows for multiple request TLV items,
but
> only says a single Result TLV, indicating the what EAP Success/Failure
result
> the peer would expect if the requested action is not granted.
>
> I can definitely see the need for the case you cited. If we want to extend
> existing design to include individual Result TLVs for the individual
request
> items, we can do that. But I think this might be more complicated and
> unnecessary. Maybe we can use the mandatory bit in the requested TLVs to
> indicate whether ignoring it would cause the failure in the result TLV.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> On 3/30/12 3:34 AM, "Jim Schaad" <jim...@augustcellars.com> wrote:
>
> > In the presentation you stated that the plan was to make the TLVs that
> > are requested become a sub TLV of the request TLV items. If that is
> > true, then should it be possible to allow for multiple request TLVs to
> > be present in a message. Thus one could say:
> > Please do A - and if not then fail authentication
> > Please do B - and if not then succeed authentication
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Emu mailing list
> > Emu@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emu mailing list
> Emu@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list
Emu@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
