Dear Josh,
Thank you for confirming comment about ordering.
We will incorporate the changes in the next version of the draft.
Best regards.
El 2/12/24 a las 12:27, josh.howl...@gmail.com escribió:
Re the text about the EAP Session Identifier
* "In EAP, fragments that are lost or damaged in transit will be retransmitted,
and since sequencing information is provided by the Identifier field in EAP,
there is no need for a fragment offset field as is provided in IPv4."
Proposed rephrasing to improve readability:
"In EAP, lost or corrupted fragments are automatically retransmitted, and
sequencing of fragments is managed using the Identifier field within EAP
messages. As a result, EAP does not require a fragment offset field, such as the
one used in IPv4, to handle reassembly."
The EAP Session Identifier does not provide sequencing information. RFC3478 Section 3.1:
"EAP does not require the Identifier to be monotonically increasing, and so is
reliant on lower layer ordering guarantees for correct operation". As Francisco
says, it is the lock-step operation of EAP that guarantees ordering.
Josh
_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list -- emu@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to emu-le...@ietf.org
--
Dan García Carrillo
---------------------
Departamento de Informática, Área de Telemática, Universidad de Oviedo
2.7.8 - Escuela Politécnica de Ingeniería, 33204, Campus de Viesques, Gijón
Tel.: +34 985182654 (Ext. 2654) | email: garcia...@uniovi.es
_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list -- emu@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to emu-le...@ietf.org
