| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Understood (I re-read the email exchange) but we can’t have two “opaques”. The ID itself need not be opaque and the “opaque” version, as per the Annex, is specific. Encrypted is not “opaque” in my opinion.
I liked the original name “network generated ID”, NGID. Anyhow see what others think, but I agree that “Device ID” needs to be changed. Graham From: mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>
Graham, This was discussed a bit on the reflector with Antonio (see emails on July 27). I think we have agreement that it must be opaque to third parties. So, it seems to be a question about “opaque in what context?”, and what does the group think about the best phrase that captures the answer to that question. Other comments/thoughts? Mark From: G Smith <gsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I was under the impression that the “opaque” bit is optional. Hence I don’t think I could support this.
Maybe “PSI” for “Persistent Identifier” or “PSID” or “PID”? Graham From: Mark Hamilton <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>
All, Antonio has proposed on the reflector (and I failed to bring up for discussion on today’s call), the following as resolution to CIDs 12 and 58 (and I think CID 25): Replace “Device ID”, “opaque identifier”, “identifier”, etc. (all the various phrases we currently have for this concept) with:
Note: Detailed and specific changes to be made to the draft will need to be provided. Please respond if there are concerns with this direction. I will formulate a motion for our August 30 teleconference in this direction, unless there is concern. 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 |