Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBH] A way forward.

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

Hi Kurt,

I guess your latter comment is on our proposal this morning.

Actually, APs in the ESS don’t store these stuff, AP just forward the blobs via MLME primitive to the centralized network, and network handle all the stuff. e.g. generate new blobs and go throw the oldest one .

It looks like the Wrapper data element in authentication frame in PSAN, AP just forward the Wrapper data to high level protocol/AS, after that, the AP obtain a new wrapper data from AS and construct a new authentication frame.

Do you think it make sense if we walk on that direction?

Thanks

Best Regards

Jay Yang

From: Lumbatis, Kurt <00002059a65d23fa-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 2023年3月17日 6:44
To: STDS-802-11-TGBH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBH] A way forward.

Upon thinking of this, may not be such a good idea. This would require the ESS and all the APs in an ESS to store possibly many keys unless some type of synchronization

Is maintained for a period of time. Perhaps others will have some better ideas.

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: Lumbatis, Kurt <00002059a65d23fa-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2023 6:17 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBH] A way forward.

May I propose that we take motions on text that has been submitted and instruct the editor to create a version 0.3 of the specification which may then be issued for additional comment collection? I realize this will require us to vote on the motions and the proposed text, but think this needs to be done.

I realize we have not yet reached consensus on all of the CRs nor met some of the feature requirements of our PAR. However, there has been a great deal of work put into resolving many of the comments against revision 0.2 on which we have reached some consensus. Can we then carry forward open comments? I am relatively new to IEEE, I realize, however, making incremental changes prior to Draft 1.0 (which we agree needs to meet all the requirements of the PAR) will at least allow us to mark many of the comments on draft 0.2 as resolved and show some progress.

This will at least allow us to seek some semblance of ‘progress’, and perhaps in the next meetings we can move on to a final resolution.