| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Mike, As I have mentioned in the call, I believe this has been brought up several times in the calls, and technical reasons/discussions are available in the past. I cite the meeting minutes for this discussion in the past below. https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/22/11-22-0754-02-00be-minutes-of-tgbe-2022-may-interim-mac.docx
Discussion:
C: some concerns. link specific information should be used to protect the message. By using MLD address, the link specific information is missing. The change is too
late.
A: link ID is used to indicate the intended link. There should be no security issue.
C: wth link ID in the frme body, there should be no issue. But the inclusion of link ID in the frame body is not mandatory.
C: the proposal is the good method.
C: disagree with the comment. The discussion is wrong. The change is too late.
A: link ID will be always in the frame body.
C: this is not true.
SP: Do you support to accept the resolution in 11-22/704r1 for the following CIDs?
5181 and 5184
23Y, 51N, 30A
Best, Po-kai From: M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx> Hello all, During the discussion of https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/22/11-22-1178-03-00be-tgbe-lb266-security-comment-resolutions.docx,
we did not reach a conclusion of CID 12322. I'd like to initiate a discussion on the reflector to see if there is consensus on a resolution to this CID. In the discussion on this CID, there seemed to be consensus for rejecting the comment. However there was no feedback on a technical reason to reject the comment. Is there someone who can propose
a rejection reason? Thanks, Mike To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1 |