Subject: [abfab] EAP retransmission text

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 05:00:41 +0900

As I spoke today, I prefer having informative text on the retransmission
issue without using a requirement language such as MUST/SHOULD. This is
because a lower-layer can be designed in multiple different ways to deal
with silent discarsion of EAP messages, including immediate termination
of the lower-layer session, and it is difficult to determine what the
best way is. In general, it depends on the characteristics of the target
application. For example, an application that is capabile of
server-driven retransmission can simply rely on EAP-layer
retransmissions to deal with this issue.

In any case, I am happy to review text.

Yoshihiro Ohba

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 09:14:25 -0500

>>>>> "Yoshihiro" == Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]> writes:

    Yoshihiro> As I spoke today, I prefer having informative text on the
    Yoshihiro> retransmission issue without using a requirement language
    Yoshihiro> such as MUST/SHOULD. This is because a lower-layer can be
    Yoshihiro> designed in multiple different ways to deal with silent
    Yoshihiro> discarsion of EAP messages, including immediate
    Yoshihiro> termination of the lower-layer session, and it is
    Yoshihiro> difficult to determine what the best way is. In general,
    Yoshihiro> it depends on the characteristics of the target
    Yoshihiro> application. For example, an application that is capabile
    Yoshihiro> of server-driven retransmission can simply rely on
    Yoshihiro> EAP-layer retransmissions to deal with this issue.

I strongly agree with the above.
I'd like to use normative text in the following wway:

Applications specifications SHOULD describe how they handle EAP
retransmission.
I think it would be undesirable to use normative language when
describing which retransmission strategy applications should use.

--Sam

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 01:30:48 +0900

Sam,

> Applications specifications SHOULD describe how they handle EAP

Use of normative text in this way is good.  On the other hand, I think 
there is a room to improve the text.

Two comments:

- I think the text is applicable not only for applications but for any 
EAP lower layer.

- I suggest to be a bit more specific about what actually should be 
described.   IMO, what should be described in each lower-layer 
specification is how to handle the case where an EAP message is 
siliently discarded by EAP peer or authenticator layer.

Suggested text:

Lower-layer specifications SHOULD describe how they handle the case 
where an EAP message is siliently discarded by EAP peer or authenticator 
layer.

Regards,
Yoshihiro Ohba