Peter J. Philipp wrote:
>
> I'm in contact with the original RFC 2845 authors for clarifications
> on what is meant in section 4.4 for the meaning of "Prior MAC
> (running)". In the bis draft this is in section 6.4 and seems
> unchanged. I'm having a hard time understanding this as an
> implement
I think this is a good clarification
Olafur
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 8:53 AM Peter J. Philipp wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> Well I ended up fixing it myself yesterday through a lot of trial and
> error and finally understanding the
>
> RFC. I recommend the following change to make it easier for future
Hi again,
Well I ended up fixing it myself yesterday through a lot of trial and
error and finally understanding the
RFC. I recommend the following change to make it easier for future
implementors in the 2845bis draft:
Section 6.4 says:
The first envelope is processed as a standard answer,
Hi,
I'm in contact with the original RFC 2845 authors for clarifications on
what is meant in section 4.4 for the meaning of "Prior MAC (running)".
In the bis draft this is in section 6.4 and seems unchanged. I'm having
a hard time understanding this as an implementor, this is an area that
n
