On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 9:20 AM Jouni Malinen <j...@w1.fi> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 05:44:33PM +0300, Oleg Pekar wrote: > > 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? > > That would be in conflict with Section 4.3.1: "Outer TLVs MUST be marked > as optional." > > Please note that this M flag does not define whether the attribute must > be included in the message; it defines whether the recipient has to > reject the message if it does not support the TLV. We can still > require the Authority-ID TLV to be present in TEAP/Start while marking > it optional for the receiver to understand it (M=0).. And Section 3.2 > does indeed say that: > The EAP server initiates the TEAP conversation with an EAP request > containing a TEAP/Start packet. This packet includes a set Start (S) > bit, the TEAP version as specified in Section 3.1, and an authority > identity TLV. > > This is still valid with M=0 for that TLV.. > > [Joe] I agree with Jouni here. It is still valid to require the authority ID in the message, the receiver does not have to process it.
> -- > Jouni Malinen PGP id EFC895FA >
_______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
