Alan DeKok <al...@deployingradius.com> wrote:
> TBH, I haven't seen an implementation.
> I suspect that the lack of implementations is why these questions are
> only coming up now.
>> My feeling is that it would be better to make the TLV length variable
>> with the hash length. However, I do not see why truncating would work
>> as well.
> My $0.02 is to allow a variable TLV length.
> I think it's OK to leave these as errata now. I'm not sure that any
> existing EMU document would be appropriate for these changes.
Apparently there will soon be a mechanism deployed which will let people
see the documents with the errata *applied* on the rfc-editor.org site, so
it's a good idea to formally accept the errata, make a decision and then you
can generate a diff.
It seems like having the TLV length be variable is the right answer.
(I don't have a TEAP implementation.... yet)
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
