| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi all, In today’s TGaz meeting we discussed possible resolutions to CID 3236. The comment is: "An RSTA shall reject a request, unless the request is for Passive TB Ranging, if it has set the" - why is it any different for passive TB Ranging? If there is no PASN negotiated can't use secured, also why would any of this apply to passive?” And the proposed resolution by the commenter is: “Remove subclause "unless the request is for Passive TB Ranging" to keep text concise” Currently in D2.3 on P128L1 the text in question reads: “An RSTA shall reject a request, unless the request is for Passive TB Ranging, if it has set the Protection of Range Negotiation and Measurement Management Frames Required field of the RSNXE to 1, and the
ISTA has not successfully set up a security context to protect IFTMR, IFTM and LMR frames exchanged between the RSTA and the ISTA.” One proposal that we were discussing in the end was to add text saying something like “The RSTA shall not reject a request for Passive TB Ranging”. I don’t think we would want that. Seems we should allow the RSTA to reject a request also for Passive TB Ranging. I think we should reject this comment. Basically I think the text is clear as it is currently written in the draft. (Possibly we could remove the third comma,
marked red, in the sentence.) (The question came up if we should enable authentication for Passive TB Ranging. We don’t currently have that, but that I think is a bigger question that would need more work and consideration to resolve.) Best Regards, Erik To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGAZ list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGAZ&A=1 |