| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hi, Antonio,
I personally like your phrase. Thanks!
I would note one tweak in the details: In my mind, the identifier is not (necessarily) opaque to the MAC layers, it can (and likely is) known to the two endpoints’ MAC layers, and whether or not it has “structure” that either/both of these MAC layers understand is not yet agreed. But, it is opaque to third-parties that might be eavesdropping. I don’t think that detracts from your proposal at all, I just had a bit of concern about that detail in how you described it, below.
Mark
From: ANTONIO DE LA OLIVA DELGADO <aoliva@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 8:08 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBH] Renaming Device ID
Dear all,
one of the comments assigned to me regards the change of Device ID to something more meaningful in the context of 11bh.
I have been thinking about this and I would like to propose "Persistent Opaque Identifier (POI)".
My reasoning is the following:
- It should not contain Device or STA or similar since considering the latest discussion this ID may be provided on a per-application basis.
- Regardless of how many POIs the device has, all of them are Persistent as key characteristic and also opaque to the MAC and PHY layers. Therefore, in my understanding they do not have a meaning from the 11bh point of view.
Thoughts?
Br
Antonio
--
--
Antonio de la Oliva
Associate Professor
Telematics Department
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
E-mail: aoliva@xxxxxxxxxx
Phone: +34 91 624 8803
Fax: +34 91 624 8749To 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