Subject: [eap] Editorial issue with state machine: clarify "altAccept"&"altReject"

From: Florent Bersani <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:17:18 +0200

Issue #TBC

Submitter name: Florent Bersani

Submitter email address: [email-masked]

Date first submitted: 06/29/2004

Document: Document Requiring change State Machine

Comment type: E

Priority: '1' Should fix

Rationale/Explanation of issue:

altAccept and altReject may be confused with protected result 
indications and their definition as "alternate indications" do not match 
with RFC 3748 (There is not a single occurrence of the word "alternate" 
in RFC 3748 - this was previous wording that disappeared, see e.g., 
issue #2).

Requested change:
Use instead the notation lowerLayerAccept and lowerLayerReject (or 
lowerLayerSuccess and lowerLayerFailure)
Point to section 3.4 of RFC 3748 ("Lower layer indications")

BTW, I believe there is a bug in section 3.4 of RFC 3748, which says: 
"if a peer receives a lower layer success indication as defined in 
Section 7.2"
I do not see such a definition in section 7.2 (I see some related 
discussion in section 7.12 though)
_______________________________________________
eap mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:16:33 +0300

I agree with this.

--Jari