| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Dan, Thanks for the comments. I quickly check the gramma, I see “opaque” can be adj., verb or noun.
I think current agreement is that the device ID is encrypted in the frame, and thus the device ID become opaque in the air. It’s due to the implementation on how the network generate the device ID, one example is the annex Z. That’s all.
We don’t need to stress “a different mechanism that provides it affords comparable security and privacy”, even the network generates a device ID like 111,222,333,etc. it’s still safe as this part is encrypted. I don’t understand what’s the meanings of “opaque identifier when it’s constructed from Annex Z”, do you intend to say “double opaque”( opaque identifier + encryption) for the 3rd party?
Thanks Best Regards Jay Yang From: Harkins, Dan <daniel.harkins@xxxxxxx> Hi Jay, "opaque" is not a verb, it's an adjective. I think this sentence is better: "An opaque identifier can optionally be constructed by the network using the procedure in Annex Z or can employ a different mechanism provided it affords comparable security and privacy." and if people are getting hung up on the word opaque we can add a definition of it for the terms portion of the amendment. regards, 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 4/10/23, 6:21 PM, "Zhijie Yang (NSB)" <zhijie.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Hi Mark, For CID35, I like what the commenters suggested sentence, and thus we can add one Note to say: Note1: An device ID shall be constructed by the network, e.g., the example procedure in Annex Z, in which the device ID is opaqued over the air to the 3rd party. Thanks Best Regards Jay Yang From: Mark Hamilton <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>
All, Just a note that I have uploaded my proposed agenda for the TGbh call Tuesday morning (U.S. time):
11-23/0621r0. My general plan/approach is:
-
Review the latest updates to the IRM proposal that we’ve been discussing, and see if we agree the requested updates are done and we can reach consensus on this way forward.
-
Review the proposal from Okan on PASN (with Device ID). Is there consensus to add this material? (I believe that between Graham’s IRM updates for PASN, and/or this proposal for PASN, we now cover CIDs 19 and 20.)
-
Review/discuss my suggestions for CID 35. (
@Dan Harkins and
@Amelia Anna Matilda Katarina Andersdotter, if you can be on the call to help us conclude on these, it would be helpful, thanks!)
-
Based on the outcome of the above, give instructions to produce the updated comment resolutions list that we can motion next week. I am hopeful that the above discussions can reach consensus on the call, and our motion next week will be able to close off all the open comments, and Carol can get going on an updated draft. If anyone has concerns with the resolutions above, please prepare your thoughts for a discussion tomorrow that will get us to a conclusion. Thanks. 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 |