From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Carlson Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 21:03:02 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Adding EAP-MSCHAPv2 support Message-Id: <19d4db3e-d996-280d-96cf-851615ac8398@workingcode.com> List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org On 2020-04-17 16:50, Eivind Naess wrote: > The RFC draft maybe long expired, but Microsoft still has EAP-MSCHAPv2 > enabled by default settings. The problem is that if EAP gets > negotiated (because the client supports it), EAP-MSCHAPv2 will > typically be selected. A workaround would be to disable EAP > negotiation on the client side to allow MSCHAPv2 to be selected and > that be only if the Microsoft server is configured to allow that. It's > mostly a compatibility problem for end-users, especially when using > SSTP. Oh, I have no doubt that they're using it, and that users will want a feature like this. I was only pointing out that the submission comment was slightly inaccurate. There is, as far as I know, no published RFC describing this protocol. The document you're citing is an Internet-Draft, not an RFC. There's no such thing as an "RFC draft." The difference is important to folks in the IETF (at least). An RFC goes through a documented review and acceptance process and never expires. An I-D is a temporary document that has no necessary review whatsoever and expires after a few months. It's not correct to refer to an I-D as any sort of RFC. -- James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W