Subject: [eap] rfc2284bis-08: problem with Nak type

From: [email-masked] (James Carlson)
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 08:05:03 -0500

The Length description for Nak says >= 5, but the text description
indicates that the Authentication Type field could be omitted (length
4) if it's just a Nak with no suggested alternative.

Submitter name: James Carlson
Submitter email address: [email-masked].
Date first submitted: January 2, 2003
Document: RFC2284bis
Comment type: T
Priority: 1
Section: 5.1
Rationale/Explanation of issue: 

This also breaks RFC 2284 compatibility.  In the original RFC, the
type field was *required*.  Systems implemented to RFC 2284 will
*discard* bogus Nak messages that don't have a suggested type field.
Instead, if "Nak with no alternative" is required (I don't think it
is), then I suggest either a reserved value (e.g., 0) or (better yet)
using the value 1 (Identity) to tell the peer to start over.

Requested change: 

from:

   The Nak Type is valid only in Response messages. It is sent in reply
   to a method proposal (the initial EAP Request for a given Type) where
   the desired authentication Type is unacceptable. Authentication Types
   are numbered 4 and above. The Response contains zero or one
   authentication Type desired by the Peer. A Nak with no authentication
   Type indicates that the Peer does not wish to authenticate using the
   proposed method but is not proposing an alternative.

to:

   The Nak Type is valid only in Response messages. It is sent in reply
   to a method proposal (the initial EAP Request for a given Type) where
   the desired authentication Type is unacceptable. Authentication Types
   are numbered 4 and above. The Response contains a single octent
   authentication Type desired by the Peer. This value may be 1
   (Identity) to indicate that the sender has no viable alternatives,
   or that the authentication attempt should be restarted.

-- 
James Carlson, Solaris Networking         <[email-masked]>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.234W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.497N   Fax +1 781 442 1677

---

From: [email-masked] (James Carlson)
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 08:23:54 -0500

> 4) if it's just a Nak with no suggested alternative.
[...]
> Section: 5.1
[...]

Obviously, that should be 5.3.  (Am I the only one who finds the form
required for commentary to be far too difficult to use?)