John wrote:
>That is probably the correct behavior to standardize, i.e., something like
>"Implementations MUST NOT set the L bit in unfragmented messages, but MUST
accept unfragmented messages with and without the L bit set."
I'm for the strict approach. Anyway some implementations don't adhere i
to say something like "Implementation SHOULD accept
unfragmented messages with and without L bit set" in addition to copying
the sentence above from RFC 5281?
Cheers,
Oleg
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 2:39 PM John Mattsson
wrote:
> Welcome and thanks for your comments Oleg!
>
> sl
Hi all,
These are my first steps in this group so please correct me if I don't
follow the rules.
Per my experience the existing fragmentation method described in EAP-TLS
RFC 5216 serves good for all fragmentation needs. The method is reused by
PEAP, EAP-FAST, TEAP and EAP-TTLS. There's an ambiguit