On Aug 4, 2023, at 6:54 AM, Heikki Vatiainen <h...@radiatorsoftware.com> wrote: > Two minor suggestions: > 1. Capitalise 'inner' in the section header > 2. End the 'Inner TLVs' definition with '... but no Outer TLVs are used'. > Here ' are used' is new text. That makes it symmetric with the previous > sentence and doesn't hint that Outer TLVs may sometime be encapsulated within > TLS records.
Done. > One thing I thought is the case where re-provisioning is a larger task which > begins with TEAP in-band re-provisioning and then continues with, for > example, HTTPS based device update in a special VLAN. That is, RADIUS > Access-Accept assigns a separate virtual LAN for doing the HTTPS part. In > this case the device needs to reconnect, or needs to be disconnected, once it > has finished its re-provisioning over HTTPS. The server must invalidate any > possible TLS resumption which would put the device back to the > (re)-provisioning VLAN. > > However, I think this is outside of scope of this draft/RFC and is something > that the device/application and server software vendor must take care of. The > new text in the draft is enough now. Agreed. Thanks. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
