Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBH] a minor technical issue in PASN ID contribution

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

Best Regards！

李炎 Li Yan

标准预研工程师 Standard Development Engineer
架构团队/有线规划部/有线产品经营部 Architecture Team/Wireline Product Planning Dept/Wireline Product Operation

南京市雨花台区软件大道50号中兴通讯

ZTE Corporation,50 Software Avenue, Yuhuatai District,

Nanjing, P.R.China, 210012

T: +86 755 xxxxxxxx F:+86 15850568971
M: +86 xxxxxxxxxxx
E: li.yan16@xxxxxxxxxx

www.zte.com.cn

Original

From: MarkHamilton <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>

To: STDS-802-11-TGBH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-11-TGBH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;

Date: 2024年06月20日 14:27

Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBH] a minor technical issue in PASN ID contribution

Another minor technical issue/question:

In 12.2.12.1, we have the short lists of “When using PASN authentication, …”, “When using FILS authentication, …” and “When not using PASN or FILS authentication, …” With the latest changes, we have remove “When using PASN authentication, …”

Comments:

The last bullet in the list (“when not using PASN or FILS authentication”) seems odd, because we never mentioned PASN authentication above this in the lists. Why isn’t this just “When not using FILS authentication” at this point? (Since this is talking about messages 2 and 3 of the 4-way, this clearly has nothing to do with PASN authentication, and that doesn’t need to be said.)
[YAN] In my previous revision(R7), the paragraph about PASN case is always put in front of association case. However, the R8 is based on suggestion of Graham and the order has been changed. For now, i think we have 2 options: 1) change as Mark's suggestion. 2) change the order of these two paragraphs to keep the PASN case in the front
The new paragraph that (outside of the lists) says when to provide a PASN ID doesn’t say anything about “when device ID is configured” anymore, as a result. So, can PASN ID operate when device ID is not being used (is “not configured”)? Doesn’t that break some of our frame/MLME/etc. behavior assumptions, that these two items (almost) always go together?
[YAN] I'm not sure if i get your question:

Firstly the PASN ID always goes with device ID. If device ID is not configured, it also means no PASN ID. Therefore, if the STA doesn't provide a PASN ID element, it implies the device ID is also not configured in the STA. In general, just beacuse these two ID always go together, the exsistence of PASN ID implies the same state of device ID. On the other hand, this paragraph indicates to provide both of PASN ID and device ID instead of only providing a PASN ID
Secondly, if device ID is not configured, how dos the STA get the PASN ID？In this contribution, there are two ways to get a PASN ID: 1)''initial connection or not recognized case'': AP provide both of device ID and PASN ID. 2) ''non-initial connection'': STA reports the PASN ID and then AP provides a new one.
lastly, because this is PASN case, the ID carried in the first PASN frame can only be PASN ID. However, the following paragraph talks about 'when PASN ID is configured....'

Mark

From: Li Yan <li.yan16@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, 19 June, 2024 20:59
To: STDS-802-11-TGBH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBH] a minor technical issue in PASN ID contribution

Hi Graham and other members,

I'v uploaded 789r8 based on the discussion of the last meeting. Basically most are related to the editorial changes and to keep consistent with CR for CID 3122 about the length of device ID status(0 or 1).

The only technical issue is as following(i.e., use 'may' or 'shall' ):

Basically i'm not sure which one should be used, so in the previous revision i just used the word 'may'(my intention is that we can have more discussion if anyone has different idea about this). However, Graham points out it should be 'shall' and i totally agree with it.

I also want to see if other members have different opinion on this.

Additionally, cloud you please check the new revision to see if it's good for you, Graham ?🙂