The Authority-ID TLV is used by the client to identify the TEAP server it is talking to. If the same client talks to more than one TEAP server - it can keep PACs or cached data from all of them identified by the Authority-ID. If we make it optional in TEAP start message but keep mandatory in PAC-Info part of the PAC - TEAP servers can stop sending it during TEAP start and then clients will need to fetch it from PAC, if there is a PAC in the conversation. But if there's no PAC - then no way to identify TEAP server.
Maybe we should keep it mandatory? On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 12:47 AM Joseph Salowey <j...@salowey.net> wrote: > Errata 5765: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5765 > Proposed Status: Verified > Revision: (unmodified from original posting) > > Section 4.2.2 says: > > M > > Mandatory, set to one (1) > > It should say: > > M > > 0 (Optional) > > Notes: > > Authority-ID TLV is used only as an Outer TLV (in TEAP/Start) and Section > 4.3.1 mandates all Outer TLVs to be marked as optional ("Outer TLVs MUST be > marked as optional"). As such, Section 4.2.2 is incorrect in claiming the > Authority-ID TLV to use M=1. >
_______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
