Hi Antonio,
In reading your note the statement of “If an AP and a non-AP STA both support both IRM and device ID, the non-AP STA might provide both an IRM and a device ID” in the later part could be confusing as it may seem contradictive is the first
part of the whole Note:. In the fact that the non-AP STA might provide both an IRM and a device ID, could be seen as that non-AP STA controls the generation of both IRM and device ID.
Possible suggestion could be
“If an AP and a non-AP STA both support both IRM and device ID, the non-AP STA might present both an IRM and a device ID during association.”
By using “present” versus “provide” indicates sharing versus creating. As well it is the event when both could be presented.
Just a suggestion.
Respectfully,
Luther
From: ANTONIO DE LA OLIVA DELGADO <aoliva@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2023 4:28 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBH] CIDs 23, 135 and 224
Hi Benjamin, what I am trying to clarify is that there are no possible conflicts since they do not tackle the same thing, therefore there is no possible conflict between them.
The only thing the AP can indicate is whether DeviceId is recognized or not and if IRM is recognised or not. In fact this indication means different things for both cases, for Device ID means the identity cannot be recognised while for
IRM means the station is not recognised as a returning STA, that is all.
I am not able right now to see a use case where a failure of, for example IRM, makes a recognised Device ID not valid or vice versa, if you have one please share it since for sure will clarify this issue
Thankyou Antonio, for pointing out the need to address the failure cases where Device ID and IRM checks produce different outcomes. The added text still doesn't inform the implementer what behavior
is expected. Saying they are not linked still can produce different results, with different potentially conflicting actions. Is the intention that it be implementation specific which is given precedence? Or am I incorrect in thinking there is a conflict
in behavior?
as promised during the last AC I am providing new text for the resolution of these CIDs.
Current text agreed during comment resolution for these CIDs is the following:
NOTE: Device ID and IRM are independent schemes that allow an AP to recognize a non-AP STA prior to association and identify it during association respectively. The device ID is allocated by an AP, and the IRM is selected by a non-AP STA.
If an AP and a non-AP STA both support both IRM and device ID, the non-AP STA might provide both an IRM and a device ID.
I think this explanation lacks information on how to proceed if both mechanisms while used concurrently yield to different results. In addition, the above paragraph seems to indicate IRM provides identification, while it is not.
I am proposing the following text, let me know what do you think
NOTE: Device ID and IRM are independent schemes that can be used concurrently. The device ID is allocated by an AP, and enables identification of the STA during association. IRM enables an AP to recognize that a STA has been associated previously to the AP,
therefore not providing any identification. If an AP and a non-AP STA both support both IRM and device ID, the non-AP STA might provide both an IRM and a device ID. Both mechanisms are not related and their failure or success is not linked.
Associate Professor
Telematics Department
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
E-mail: aoliva@xxxxxxxxxx
Phone: +34 91 624 8803
Fax: +34 91 624 8749
--
Associate Professor
Telematics Department
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
E-mail: aoliva@xxxxxxxxxx
Phone: +34 91 624 8803
Fax: +34 91 624 8749
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
|