Considerations regarding the correct use of EAP-Response/Identity
draft-ietf-radext-populating-eapidentity-01
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(radext WG)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Stefan Winter | ||
| Last updated | 2017-01-09 (Latest revision 2016-07-08) | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
There are some subtle considerations for an EAP peer regarding the content of the EAP-Response/Identity packet when authenticating with EAP to an EAP server. This document describes two such considerations and suggests workarounds to the associated problems. One of these workarounds is a new requirement for EAP peers that the use of UTF-8 is required for the content of EAP-Response/Identity (which updates RFC3748).
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)