| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Consent is a distraction. If the STA doesn't consent to being tracked then it doesn't participate in the scheme, it's that simple. Even with network-provided device ID, if the STA doesn't want to be tracked it just throws the device ID
away and never uses it. Dan. -- "the object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." – Marcus Aurelius On 2/23/23, 5:47 PM, "Zhijie Yang (NSB)" <zhijie.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Hi Mark, All, After the down-select procedure, Sid provided 4 extra requirements for pre-association identification scheme in the last call. Suppose some of “Apple funs” keep this position as well. If we insist to working on
RRCM solution, I believe “Apple funs” will strong against the down-select results. And the expected motion will be failure definitely. May I request to go with e-RRCM solution which may meet the 4 extra requirements listed by Sid? I would like to hear the group’s opinion.
1.
Consent
2.
Unauthenticated environment
3.
Malicious 3rd party protection
4.
What is identifier used for Thanks Best Regards Jay Yang From: Mark Hamilton <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>
All, I took an action item to start this discussion on the reflector… On today’s call, we completed our down-selection process and settled on RRCM as the favored solution to work on, to try to get any additional solution into the Draft (or agree that we are not adding anything else).
However, in discussion following the down-selection process, it seems that some of the objection that might exist and prevent RRCM from passing such a motion, *might* be resolved by aspects of what’s in e-RRCM. So, we are left in a quandary – do we
modify RRCM to include some/all e-RRCM extensions to satisfy the concerns, or is that reversing our straw poll guidance that RRCM is preferred over e-RRCM, and therefore we’ll lose some RRCM supporting voters if we do so? So, I’d like to start this thread to see if there is a sense in the group:
·
Can those who preferred RRCM over e-RRCM provide an understanding of what made that decision for you?
·
Are there aspects of e-RRCM that we can add to RRCM (to satisfy those who expressed concerns with RRCM as-is) and still hold your approval of RRCM going forward into the Draft?
·
Are there aspects of e-RRCM that you oppose, and bringing those into the proposal that is put to motion next week would cause you to vote No? Thanks for any insights. 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 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 |