Re: [STDS-802-11-TGAI] Comment resolution needed for MDR Report

Thread Links	Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

Hi Dan,

Thank you for your comments on the resolution. I’m working on the MDR report as Co-Editor and I’m open to any resolution agreed by the group. The email was also sent to 11ai reflector encouraging the feedback from others.

Up to now, we received more than X thousand comments. I believe this clause is not the only one that received comments in more than one ballot. As you and George proposed the framework for security, I thought the AEAD counter was also proposed by you two. Now it seems this came from others.

For the specific motion you mentioned, I don't quite remember exactly. But if you check the 11ai contribution list on mentor, several others (at least four) of my coworkers contributed actively on draft and comment resolutions. Since 11ai letter ballot, as Co-Editor, I spend almost all of my time in IEEE802.11 meeting, and even more time after each meeting on improving 11ai draft, not on proposing new concepts, or just show of hands. Of course, our Editor Lee spent much more time than me.

Best Regards,

Ping

From: Dan Harkins [mailto:dharkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 2:55 AM
To: Fangping (Device Standard); gcherian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Marc Emmelmann; Hiroshi Mano; Lee Armstrong; STDS-802-11-TGAI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGAI]Comment resolution needed for MDR Report

More problems associated with the AEAD counters…. My solution is to get rid of the

need to have counters. We should replace the current fragile specification that seems

to generate comments every single ballot cycle with one that has provable security, is

robust, and does not lose all security if counters happen to repeat.

If you remember, the last time I tried to fix this problem and wanted to make a motion

you asked to wait until the next session so you could read the submission more thoroughly.

I agreed and at the next session there were a half dozen of your co-workers (who I had

never seen in a TGai meeting before) in the back of the room and they all voted down

my proposal (and as soon as the vote was over they left the room).

Perhaps you could ask some of your coworkers to fix it since they feel so strongly

about it the way it is done now.

Dan.

On 4/2/15 11:56 PM, "Fangping (Device Standard)" <ping.fang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Dan, George,

Could you help to provide the resolution text for the comment below in MDR?

P128L28 the little-endianness of 802.11 disagrees with ‘first bit is 1’

The discussion from Editor’s meeting is that “Dangerous as specified – should be described as an integer field of 13 octets width. The special value should be 2**((13*8)-1).”

The related text in D4.0 is cited below:

FILS requires an additional element: a 13 octet AEAD counter to be part of the newly created PTKSA. The STA shall set the AEAD counter to 13 octets of zero and the AP shall set the first octet to the value 128 and the remaining octets to zero (i.e. the first bit of the AEAD counter is 1 and the rest of the bits in the counter are 0). To allow for proper processing, each side shall include the AEAD counter of the other as a peer’s AEAD counter (see 11.11.2.6 (AEAD cipher mode for FILS)).

Best Regards,

Ping Fang

IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand.