| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Mark, Yes that sounds a good idea. As I found when looking at the IRMA solution, it could be used in some of the Use Cases that were classed as “out of scope”. The point being that it worked if the user opted-in. Also, Use Case 4.17 (Lawful
Surveillance) has been classed as “out-of-scope” but in fact is important in that any solution must ‘protect against’ this Use Case and keep the protection as good as or better than the purely random MAC as per the current Spec.
Also, for Section 6, I suspect that Tables will not work, but that each Case needs a response from the proposers of each solution, warts and all.
I do agree that discussing the Use Cases is now not that useful, we need to discuss the proposals, see if we have any acceptance, see if we want to have more than one option, see if any way of combining etc.
For example the solution must satisfy at least 4.2 and protect against 4.17. That may be good enough. Thanks Graham From: Mark Hamilton [mailto:mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx]
Apologies – typo: The discussion is not captured “in Section 4.2”, rather it is “in Section 5, and applied to section 4.2”. Mark From: mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>
All, During the last meeting of the November session, the TGbh discussion spent most of the meeting discussing the first few use cases, and getting into a deep discussion about what use cases were in scope, and/or what requirements would apply
to a solution for it to be in scope or not. I would like to suggest that we consider this discussion from another angle. Specifically, that the considerations that were brought up during that last meeting are good candidates for our section 6 analysis of solutions. I believe by
the time the discussion had started to converge on some ideas and points to consider, that we were actually starting to list points that would/should be applied to solutions that are proposed for inclusion into TGbh, and guidelines/criteria for consideration
as to whether various solutions are within our scope and/or meet our requirements (some of which might be more “nice-to-have” or tradeoff considerations than necessarily hard requirements, also). So, I’m opening this up for discussion as a way forward on our discussion. I’d like the group to consider (and respond here, on the reflector, and/or we’ll discuss on the upcoming TGbh meeting call on Dec 7) whether we should be crafting
the discussion that got captured in Section 4.2 not as discussion of the use case, but as discussion of any proposed solution and its applicability. Thoughts/comments? Mark To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBH list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBH&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBH list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBH&A=1 |