You are right. I think we can remove the last paragraph of Section 5.2. Yoshihiro Ohba
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 03:58:37PM +0300, Alper Yegin wrote: > > > Section 5.2: > > > > > > You say: > > > > When > > > > available, the cached answer can be used instead of fully processing > > > > the retransmitted request and forming a new answer from scratch. > > > But: > > > > > > > > PANA MUST NOT generate EAP message duplication. EAP payload of a > > > > retransmitted PANA message MUST NOT be passed to the EAP layer. > > > I'm not sure what the last sentence means, but with all these capital > > > letters it > > > must be important. At first glance, the two statements above seem to be > > > in conflict with one another. Are you saying that any message carrying > > > EAP payloads must not be retransmitted? Are you saying that if they are > > > retransmitted, that this should somehow be detected and the EAP payload > > > dropped internally before being processed by EAP? This needs to be make > > > more clear. > > > > The latter is the meaning the text is trying to convey. Perhaps we > > can rephrase something like: > > > > " > > PANA MUST NOT generate EAP message duplication. EAP payload of a > > retransmitted PANA message MUST be detected using Sequence > > Number field of PANA header and the EAP payload contained in the > > duplicate PANA message MUST be silently discarded internally before > > being > > processed by EAP. > > " > > Why do we care about this? EAP can handle duplicates. > > Can we get rid of this special handling? > > Alper > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Pana mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana
