> d. Feedback request - Dan Harkins – CID 587
Having looked at 587…
I don't even understand Table 12-5—Robust management frame selection in an infrastructure BSS:
- What does "No action" mean under "AP action"?
That's basically why I'm asking for time. I want to see if there's some consensus about what the behavior should be.
- Why is the AP behaviour not the same for all the "The STA shall not
[try to] associate with the AP" cases, specifically "The AP shall
reject associations from the STA with the Status Code
ROBUST_MANAGEMENT_POLICY_VIOLATION"? At least the ones where the AP
isn't advertising an invalid combination!
Well if you can make the case that they should all be the same then I'd like to hear it.
In fact, if you think you know how the CID should be resolved and what the necessary clarification is I'll be happy to reassign the CID to you. Lemme know.
Well, just thinking aloud, how about:
AP MFPC | AP MFPR | STA MFPC | STA MFPR | STA action | AP action | PMF used? |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | The STA may associate with the AP | The AP may accept associations from the STA | No |
0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | The STA may associate with the AP | The AP may accept associations from the STA | No |
1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | The STA may associate with the AP | The AP may accept associations from the STA | No |
1 | 0 or 1 | 1 | 0 or 1 | The STA may associate with the AP | The AP may accept associations from the STA | Yes |
0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | The STA shall not associate with the AP | The AP shall reject associations from the STA with the Status Code
ROBUST_MANAGEMENT_P
OLICY_VIOLATION
[or N/A?] | N/A |
1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | The STA shall not associate with the AP | The AP shall reject associations from the STA with the Status Code
ROBUST_MANAGEMENT_P
OLICY_VIOLATION [or N/A?] | N/A |
0 or 1 | 0 or 1 | 0 | 1 | The STA shall not use this combination | The AP shall reject associations from the STA with the Status Code
ROBUST_MANAGEMENT_P
OLICY_VIOLATION [or N/A?] | N/A |
0 | 1 | 0 or 1 | 0 or 1 | The STA shall not associate with the AP | The AP shall not use this combination | N/A |
Thanks,
Mark
--
Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN English/Esperanto/Français
Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Tel: +44 1223 434600
Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS Fax: +44 1223 434601
- That table covers 13 combinations, so what about the other 3?
I think these are 0001, 0100, 0101 (all invalid at the AP and/or STA).
This is also true for Table 12-6—Robust management frame selection
in an IBSS
So I agree with the comment that there is a need to
"Clarify since it is a frequent source of confusion"!
Thanks,
Mark
--
Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN English/Esperanto/Français
Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Tel: +44 1223 434600
Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS Fax: +44 1223 434601
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
Hi all,
I just wanted to remind everyone that REVme will meet on Monday at 10am ET. The full agenda doc is posted here:
The agenda for the CC35 comment resolutions (the bulk of the meeting) will be:
a Document 11-21/695r0 – Michael Montemurro (Huawei) – CIDs 51-80 (20 min)
b. https://www.ieee802.org/11/email/stds-802-11-tgm/msg02118.html– Mark Rison (Samsung) – CIDs (remaining time to 1hr)
c. Document <> - Edward Au (Huawei) – Editor 2 CIDs
d. Feedback request - Dan Harkins – CID 587
e. Document 11-21/688r0 - Ganesh Venkatesan (Intel) – CIDs <>
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGM list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM&A=1
--
"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