[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Capabilities: Moving forward
Sorry for following up to myself, but I made a few typo's that may cause
On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 10:18:45AM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> The rationale for a capabilities advertising capability in this
> scenario is as follows:
> - A server needs to know in advance how the NAS will respond to a
> for the withheld information, because a NAS may not support
> challenges, causing premature rejection of the user per RFC 2685
> section 4.4 (), or it may misunderstand the reason for the
> challenge, causing other unintended behaviour.
> To expand on this, according to , a NAS that supports PAP but
> that is not willing or able to forward the challenge in the of
replace 'the of' with 'the form of a'
> Reply-Message to the user, MUST treat the Access-Challenge as an
> Access-Reject. A NAS that supports classic challenges for PAP
> requests to implement one time passwords, would effectively forward
> the challenge to the user, which is not intended here.
> 2. The second problem: some server policies require an Access-Accept
insert 'to be'
> conditional on the NAS' support for certain session limiting
> attributes, and on the proxy chain's transparency for them.
E-Advies - Emile van Bergen email@example.com
tel. +31 (0)78 6136282 http://www.e-advies.nl
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.