I looked over the code, and it looked fine to me. <carlsonj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > On Apr 17, 2020, at 5:13 PM, Eivind Naess <enaess@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Ok, thanks for the clarification. Is there anything that needs to be > done then? Can this be applied? > >> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 2:03 PM James Carlson <carlsonj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> 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 <carlsonj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > -- > Cheers, > - Eivind
