RE: [eap] Ordered delivery of EAP messages

["Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <gwz@cisco.com>]

Yoshihiro Ohba <mailto:yohba@tari.toshiba.com> allegedly scribbled on
Thursday, March 08, 2007 5:25 AM:

> Glen,
> 
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:15:24PM -0800, Glen Zorn (gwz) wrote:
>> 
>> My basic argument is that EAP _does_ work over a transport that
>> doesn't guarantee in-order delivery (the example being RADIUS) except
>> in a deep, dark, cobweb-filled corner case.  The arguments have been
>> that "well-behaved" RADIUS implementations exhibit what amounts to
>> in-order delivery despite the fact that it is not required by the
>> RFCs 
>> but badly behaved EAP implementations will fail in a contrived,
>> pathological case. I am saying that a badly-behaved RADIUS
>> implementation would fail in 
>> that same pathological case and the converse.
>> 
> 
> Which case do you mean by "badly-behaved EAP implementations"?

I expect that any implementation that would fall prey to Pasi's
pathological example would be badly behaved.

> 
> Yoshihiro Ohba

--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>