| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hello both,
I believe there was an agreement that the “ Protection of Range Negotiation and Measurement Management Frames Required field” holds no bearing over the rejection or
acceptance of an FTM Req. for establishing a Passive TB Ranging.
The latest proposal during the call is shown below (with the change identified).
I’ve document the proposal to remove the last line in the 11-20-1437 which I will upload soon and for review and SP on Tue.
An RSTA shall reject a request ,
unless the request is for Passive TB Ranging,for a Trigger-Based, a non-Trigger-Based, or an EDCA based ranging measurement with a Format and Bandwidth field indicating DMG or EDMG format, 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.An RSTA shall not reject such a request for Passive TB ranging.
Best Regards,
Jonathan Segev,
Cell (WhatsApp): +1-408-203-3337
From: *** 802.11 TGaz - NGP - Next Generation Positioning *** <STDS-802-11-TGAZ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Erik Lindskog
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2020 13:44
To: STDS-802-11-TGAZ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGAZ] TGaz LB249 CID 3236 - Regarding rejection or not of Passive TB Ranging by RSTA requiring MAC security
Hi Christian,
Well.. we still need to single what to do for Passive TB Ranging as by default we for Passive TB Ranging inherit the rules for TB Ranging. With this in mind, it would sort of have to read:
“An RSTA shall reject a request for a Trigger-Based, a non-Trigger-Based, an EDCA based, but not for a Passive TB Ranging based, ranging measurement with a Format and Bandwidth field indicating DMG or EDMG format, if it has set the Protection of Range Negotiation and Measurement Management Frames Required field of the RSNXE to 1,”
Also don’t we still need the last part of the sentence, i.e. the:
“, 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.”
I don’t know, maybe what we have still is better than this. Would be less words.
Erik
From: Christian Berger [mailto:christian.berger@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 1:18 PM
To: Erik Lindskog <e.lindskog@xxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGAZ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGAZ] TGaz LB249 CID 3236 - Regarding rejection or not of Passive TB Ranging by RSTA requiring MAC security
Hi Erik,
To satisfy the commenter (and not changing the actual behavior) I had suggested the following, reusing the list of the preceding paragraph
“An RSTA shall reject a request for a Trigger-Based, a non-Trigger-Based, or an EDCA based ranging measurement with a Format and Bandwidth field indicating DMG or EDMG format, if it has set the Protection of Range Negotiation and Measurement Management Frames Required field of the RSNXE to 1,”
In this way the sentence clearly specifies what to do (because it also would not reject legacy requests presumably).
Christian
From: *** 802.11 TGaz - NGP - Next Generation Positioning *** <STDS-802-11-TGAZ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Erik Lindskog
Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 12:38 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGAZ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGAZ] TGaz LB249 CID 3236 - Regarding rejection or not of Passive TB Ranging by RSTA requiring MAC security
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
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
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
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