RE: [LinkSec] Issues with Supplicant Controled port
This is what I get from sending my note on the road...
I MEANT THE UNCONTROLLED PORT!!!!
SORRY!!!!
:)
At 10:51 PM 8/11/2003 -0400, CONGDON,PAUL (HP-Roseville,ex1) wrote:
>If the supplicant has a controlled port like the authenticator does, then it
>also presumably has an uncontrolled port. It is possible to send and
>receive frames on the uncontrolled port at anytime that is physically
>possible.
>
>Paul
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert Moskowitz [mailto:rgm@trusecure.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 4:32 AM
> > To: Tony Jeffree; stds-802-1@ieee.org; stds-802-linksec@ieee.org
> > Subject: [LinkSec] Issues with Supplicant Controled port
> >
> >
> >
> > At the San Fran meeting there was good concensus to accept my
> > requested
> > change to explicitly define the Supplicant Control Port.
> >
> > There was one concern. That was:
> >
> > When the Supplicant is portStatus=Invalid,
> >
> > The Supplicant cannot transmit, but can it receive?
> >
> > I think the discuss was going that it was important for
> > bridges that were
> > supplicants to receive frames even in the Invalid status.
> >
> > We need to resolve this so we can settle the disposition of
> > my changes for
> > the Supplicant Controled Port.
> >
> >
> > Robert Moskowitz
> > Senior Technical Director
> > ICSA Labs, a division of TruSecure Corp.
> > (248) 968-9809
> > Fax: (248) 968-2824
> > rgm@icaslabs.com
> >
> > There's no limit to what can be accomplished
> > if it doesn't matter who gets the credit
> >
> >
Robert Moskowitz
Senior Technical Director
ICSA Labs, a division of TruSecure Corp.
(248) 968-9809
Fax: (248) 968-2824
rgm@icaslabs.com
There's no limit to what can be accomplished
if it doesn't matter who gets the credit