On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 11:56:07AM -0800, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
> I have a question. I have some experience with code reuse, but I was
> hacking, err... prototyping. What is the general sense on using a piece
> of TLS code to do things like EAP-TLS or EAP-TLS and EAP-TLS-PSK? I ask
> be
Hi,
I have a question. I have some experience with code reuse, but I was
hacking, err... prototyping. What is the general sense on using a piece
of TLS code to do things like EAP-TLS or EAP-TLS and EAP-TLS-PSK? I ask
because elsewhere people make the argument that TLS is already there on
a
Hi Bernard,
Thanks for the quick reply. I am ok on the first and third questions,
thanks.
However, what I meant by my second question was how do we know from a
protocol stand point that this is not the first but a subsequent request?
Are we relying on the server state (a tunnel is established now
What sort of benefit does this provide. If a server fails to authenticate
due to a security reason, then its EAP failure would not matter, since it
cannot be trusted anyway.
This is an optional mechanism for enabling the server to log the reason for
the error. This might allow an administrator
Hi Bernard, others,
I have a few comments/ questions on 08 of the 2716bis. I apologize if this
has been discussed before.
Section 2.1.3
"
If the EAP server authenticates unsuccessfully, the peer MAY send an
EAP-Response packet of EAP-Type=EAP-TLS containing a TLS Alert
message
