I was unavoidably detained and unfortunately joined the TGbi meeting today late. Hence, I did not interrupt the proceedings as it seemed that much discussion had already taken place and I was not sure what might have already been said.
However, I did vote no on the motion as a quick read of r2 made me feel that the text is not yet ready for prime time.
I would like to make the following comments and hopefully request these might be addressed before this text goes into 0.1. I welcome feedback of course and interested to see what others think.
Thanks
Graham
A few comments on 24/0222r2.
- “Enhanced data privacy” just does not work for me. It is the MLD
identity or presence not its data that is getting privacy. “Enhanced MLD privacy” would make more sense, or even why not stick to CPE? It is only for the client anyway. I don’t see the need to confuse matters with a new name (see also next
comment).
- “enhanced data privacy (EDP) parameter: [EDP
epoch parameter] CPE or BPE parameter.”
First need to delete “epoch”. Second this is not a definition. Is it an EDP parameter or a CPE parameter or a BPE parameter? Are they the same? Can’t define one thing as being the same as something else. You should maybe define it along the
lines of “a parameter that identifies an MLD”. Better still just stick to CPE parameters and lose all this lot.
- OSN and OPN
Hate these acronyms. For example “over-the-air” is used in FT and just called “over-the-air FT”, not OFT. I would suggest that “over-the-air SN” is fine. Similarly “over-the-air PN”
4.
“10.y.1 Introduction
An EDP Epoch is a time window in which a set of EDP parameters remain constant .”
This is a repeat of the definition, not needed.
- “An Individual EDP Epoch sequence request is initiated by a non-AP MLD and the associated AP MLD shall send a response”
Are these Action frames? If so why have you not added the holders or names for them?
- “A non-AP MLD has at most one EDP Epoch”
This, I think, is supposed to mean “has only one EDP Epoch at any given time”. But is this is not true as there is a transition time when two epochs are present? Needs to be clarified.
7.
10.y.2 “EDP Epoch setup
EDP Epoch may be one-time or periodic and there are two types of EDP Epoch – Group EDP Epoch and Individual EDP Epoch.”
The text has no mention of “setup”. It just repeats previous text. Needs to be re-written.
- “…contain values that facilitate
presence monitoring, ”
What’s with the italics?, not needed.
- “…presence-monitoring time-windows…”
Hyphens are discouraged in our Standard. See also “long-term”.
- “However, (re)association results in leaving
State 4 and introduces a loss in connectivity that could create a negative user experience.”
Changing epochs can also introduce a loss of connectivity. Do not see why this sentence is inserted. A STA can (re)associate whenever it wants to. In fact as it controls this action, not clear why it should “shoot itself in the foot”. Delete this sentence.
- “Frame anonymization (FA) is an EDP feature available when MLO is supported.”
This sentence is in the wrong place, it should come after the list of unencrypted fields so as to maintain the flow from the previous para.
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBI list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBI&A=1