| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Mark, Aha, there’s the difference. I read Annex Z as an Opaque ID being one step extra to a “standard” ID. The Opaque ID in Annex Z is effectively a random sequence of bits that needs a further step of decryption before it is useful. The Device
ID in the KDEs could be an ID that actually has some meaning and does not need a further step of decryption.
As I stated at the meeting today, we are forgetting that the ID should actually mean something. Just knowing that a non-AP STA has returned means nothing – it’s what the higher layer does with it that matters. In many cases the ID could
be a membership number, a reference number, etc. Anyhow, that is where I am coming from, and I feel that there is a confusion introduced by having two “opaques”. I am quite happy with Annex Z describing this extra secure, “opaque ID”, but it should be distinguished from the general term
of what is actually inserted in the KDEs, e.g., an NGID is carried in the KDE, which may or may not be an opaque ID. Be interested if others are on the same wavelength, or maybe I am out-to-lunch. Best Graham From: mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>
Graham, I understand your point about “two opaques”. I never thought of that as a term that means the one in Annex Z, though. I’ve heard a couple similar comments on calls about this Annex, and it confuses me. Note that the Annex is explicitly
an “Example opaque identifer”. This is one (example) scheme for generating an opaque identifier. It could just as easily be an “Example NGID”, as our example for generating NGIDs. However, (and back to your point about “two opaques”) it does also have an
additional attribute that the ID this scheme generates is protected/opaque, even if the ID is passed off to a third party. To me, that is an interesting additional attribute, but has nothing to do with (or is an unrelated addition to) the “Device ID” being
opaque (to third parties) due to the way we implement our protocol exchanges. But, perhaps I am alone in this way of thinking? Mark From: G Smith <gsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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 |