| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
No, the text requires the AP to provide a secure solution that affords privacy to the STA. I'm not sure why that is so much to ask. Actually, it seems to be the baseline of service that 11bh can and should provide.
Annex Z defines a technique that combines random number generation with an authenticated encryption operation. Why that is "too complicated" to implement is not apparent. But much simpler operations do exist, unfortunately they do not
provide the same level of security and privacy. 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 4/11/23, 6:49 PM, "Zhijie Yang (NSB)" <zhijie.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Hi Graham, Yes, I already made the comments on “what is the comparable security and privacy”? during the call yesterday. The proposed text force the AP vendor must find a solution like Annex Z did. I’m not sure how other AP
vendor think it about. Further, we don’t have any consensus on the device ID carried in the unencrypted frame. I think we need a SP on this part before we talk the resolution. Hi Mark, I hope we could focus on the comment itself and move forward, the commenter says: “I guess I'm in general a bit confused as to whether "the identifier" is always an "opaque identifier" as in Annex Z, or whether there are different identifiers defined in subclause 12.2.11.
Adding a sentence on identifiers would help, perhaps along the lines of "An opaque identifier can be constructed by the network according to the example procedure in Annex Z, but an identifier can also be differently constructed by a mechanism chosen by the
network." I guess the non-AP STA would not technically need to be concerned with how the identifier is constructed.” The proposed resolution should be like “An device ID can be constructed by the network according to the example procedure in Annex Z, but it can also be differently constructed by a mechanism
chosen by the network, the device ID should be opaque over the air” But your proposed resolution is beyond what the commenter’s comment. If someone have other intention on this, we could address it in the next round on a dedicated CIDs. Thanks Best Regards Jay Yang From: G Smith <gsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Mark, I think you are close. As we have not had any other proposals for an “opaque” ID scheme, and I think we may get comments on “what is the comparable security and privacy?”; maybe we make it a little stronger in Annex Z’s favor?
How about changing last sentence to simply read: I am sure you will get other ideas, but thought I might kick it off. Graham From: Mark Hamilton <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>
All, At risk of stepping into the fire again, here is another suggested approach to our language introducing the Annex Z procedure. My intent is to provide enough context to explain why this is used/useful.
•
Insert a new paragraph at the end of 12.2.11.1 (subclause numbering per 11-23/0129r4): “When it is desirable to use a device identification which is relatively permanent, for example an identification that has external meaning
(a username, account number, etc.), and the Device ID carrying the device identification might be communicated without encryption, it is necessary that the Device ID keep the device identification private (“opaque”) from third-parties. In such cases, the
procedure in Annex Z, or any procedure that affords comparable security and privacy, can optionally be used to protect the device identification within a Device ID.” Comments? Mark From: Zhijie Yang (NSB) <zhijie.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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 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 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 |