Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBH] Updated CC41 resolution sheet

Thread Links	Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

Graham,

You were and are quite right. I have drastically simplified things and made them more sane in R1 of 22/1818. Hopefully this will make
a lot more sense. I will work on a text submission tomorrow and hope to present it next week after we edit it.

Think there needs to be better indications from the STA and then allow the AP/Network figure things out based on what the STA provides.

The key changes in this are the use of

Device ID Support bit in the RSN Extension Element
FILS -- Device ID Element present or absent in the Association Request Frame
FT and others -- Device ID KDE present or absent in message 2 of the 4-Way handshake

Review if you have time and let me know your thoughts.

Kurt Lumbatis

Distinguished Software Engineer

DOCSIS CPE R&D SW Architecture (Wi-Fi)

ARRIS AND RUCKUS HAVE JOINED COMMSCOPE

3871 Lakefield Dr, Suwanee, GA 30024 USA

Office: +01-678-473-2921

From: G Smith <gsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2022 1:28 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBH] Updated CC41 resolution sheet

Hi Kurt,

I see in 22/1218 you have proposed a radical change.

A few observations/points:

At the moment the Device ID element is optional for non-FILS. You now intend it to be mandatory if support is advertised?
The ID Control effectively overrides the Capability bit?
As the non-AP STA is in control of the Device ID element, then the non-AP STA effectively has control? Is this intended ?– it may get some resistance.
Original Mobile generated ID scheme simply was considered as a separate scheme and support for it advertised. Hence, if AP did not support it, non-AP STA could not use it. What’s wrong with that?
Do you intend to add the ID control to the Device ID KDE?
First decision will be if the TG wants to allow the non-AP STA to generate the ID. If not, do you still need the ID Control sub field?

These are off the top of my head but may need to be addressed.

Also not convinced you need to wait in order to propose the new wording for 12/2/11, as that covered the first time association. Then other changes could be made based on that.

Graham

From: Lumbatis, Kurt <kurt.lumbatis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2022 12:05 PM
To: G Smith <gsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBH] Updated CC41 resolution sheet

Graham,

It depends on the outcome of the review of my submission 22/1218.

If we can agree upon these basic tenants

Kurt Lumbatis

Distinguished Software Engineer

DOCSIS CPE R&D SW Architecture (Wi-Fi)

ARRIS AND RUCKUS HAVE JOINED COMMSCOPE

3871 Lakefield Dr, Suwanee, GA 30024 USA

Office: +01-678-473-2921

From: G Smith <gsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 5, 2022 12:19 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBH] Updated CC41 resolution sheet

I worked with Kurt to re-write this section., splitting into first time association and subsequent associations. Hence it is a major re-write, I think it would be prudent to see what the re-write is and then make changes to that.

Kurt, when will you post?

Graham

From: Carol Ansley <carol@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 5, 2022 11:31 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBH] Updated CC41 resolution sheet

As editor, I would always rather be able to work from specific instructions in the CID response than to try to find items discussed by email.

Regards,

Carol

From: Yang, Zhijie (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <zhijie.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 9:13 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-11-TGBH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBH] Updated CC41 resolution sheet

Hi Mark,

I’m fine with your proposal.

Need I update such proposal to the new revision and then we can have a quick talk on it during the motion?

Or the editor can handle with it?

Thanks

Best Regards

Jay Yang

From: mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 2022年8月5日 7:47
To: Yang, Zhijie (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <zhijie.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBH] Updated CC41 resolution sheet

Jay,

Thank you for checking these.

I agree with you, I missed that we now have 4 paragraphs replacing the one big one in 12.2.11. Good catch.

Further, now that I look at this again, I would suggest we put your new sentence as the first sentence (and paragraph) of those four. So we first introduce that a non-AP STA may reuse the identifier by sending to the AP, and then we break out the three ways that is done for the different situations. What do you think?

Mark

From: Yang, Zhijie (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <zhijie.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2022 4:52 PM
To: mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx; STDS-802-11-TGBH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBH] Updated CC41 resolution sheet

Hi Mark,

I have checked the proposed change in the latest spreadsheet, I guess there is an editorial issue when I read the following Editor’s instruction.

The last sentences covers the above three cases(FILS, FT, and "other cases"), which is already agreed by the group in the last plenary meeting. And thus the proposed change(last sentence) shall be put in a separated paragraph, right? If so, we need update the editor’s instruction to say “Note to Editor: This includes replacing the last sentence in a separated paragraph, and also breaking the text into three paragraphs (for FILS, FT, and "other cases").”

@Carol, What’s your opinion?

The resolution on other CIDs are correct.

Jay Yang

"When using FILS authentication, the non-AP STA sends the identifier", need to clarify the identifier here,
like the latest one received from BSS or ESS.

Technical

12.2.11

as the comments

Jay Yang

Ready for motion

11-22/1082

Revised

Make the changes shown in 11-22/1082r3 under "Proposed text". Note to Editor: This includes replacing the last sentence, and also breaking the text into three paragraphs (for FILS, FT, and "other cases").

Thanks

Best Regards

Jay Yang

From: Mark Hamilton <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 2022年8月3日 1:20
To: STDS-802-11-TGBH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBH] Updated CC41 resolution sheet

All,

I have updated and cleaned up the CC41 comment resolution spreadsheet, here: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/22/11-22-0973-06-00bh-cc41-comments-against-d0-2.xlsx

A few notes, including ones that need to be checked/confirmed by the group:

The ones that are marked in green, and say “Ready for motion” in the Status column, will be put to a motion with the resolution as recorded in the Resn Type and Resolution Text columns. At this time, no motions on teleconferences have been scheduled, so unless something changes, the plan would be to motion all of these at the September meeting. I need to coordinate with Carol (our Editor) on our process, however, and be sure we are supporting her appropriately.
The ones in yellow, with “Review” in the Status column, need some quick action before they are formally Ready for motion.
Jay/Okan, as authors of 11-22/1082, please confirm that I translated the resolutions for CIDs in that document into the actual Resolution Text, correctly.

To all, in the future, I’m going to try to do these updates in real-time on the call, so there is no chance for my error to creep in. If anyone has a concern with how I’ve captured our agreement that the 11-22/1082 were resolved, please let me know.

On CID 55, I noted that the phrase that this comment references actually occurs two times in that paragraph. I suggest we just replace them both, but I will confirm that with the group on our call next week.

The above can be quickly double-checked on the next teleconference.

Thanks, all. This is progress!

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