| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
On 7/17/24, 10:06 AM, "Mark Rison" <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: At this point, we have an agreement from the group (from yesterday) to mark CID 4008 as Revised: Incorporate the changes shown in
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/24/11-24-1026-02-00bh-resolution-of-padding-cids.docx. (Recall that CID 4008 is about the text in AF.2 that talks about how the maximum size(s) are derived, etc., which Dan’s 11-24/1026 replaces. I would like to hear from anyone else (in addition to Mark R) who would like a different resolution.
Otherwise, we’re going to need to move on, with the one noted objection. (And, Mark R, do you want to be personally noted on the objection?) Yes please. Helps with my resubmission on the next draft! Then, I want to sort out CID 4009, which is asking for a statement about the maximum size of the Device ID field, in clause 9 locations (presumably each/every location in clause 9,
as the comment is not more specific). I think the proposal from Dan (to go with our agreement yesterday (above)) is that clause 9 does not need any such statement, because the maximum length in the protocol itself is the (implied) maximum that will fit in
the structures. Any restrictions because of the device ID being included into a larger structure, encrypted, etc., are covered by Dan’s proposal in AF.2, when that is used. So, I think that means CID 4009 is actually now: Rejected. The Device ID field can be the maximum size that will fit in the protocol constraints, which is an implied rule for all
elements without an explicit statement. (Or something like that.) I would like to hear from anyone with comments/concerns about this direction for CID 4009. That doesn't work, because in the Device ID element the device ID can be 253 octets when sent to an AP but only 252 octets when sent by an AP, but in a Device ID KDE the device ID can only be 251 or 250 octets respectively. This is orthogonal to AF.2. It is my understanding that non-AP STAs do not invent device IDs out of whole cloth but are given one by the AP when they connect and do not provide one. So there is no way a STA could send a device ID that
is bigger than the biggest one an AP can send him. 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 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 |