Yes. That would work. If no objections, I can add to the draft.
On 4/2/12 2:07 AM, "Jim Schaad" <i...@augustcellars.com> wrote: > 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
