Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] Resolution to CID 116

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

I think some strikethroughs got lost (I have this trouble when I cut

and paste Word change-tracking).

Anyway, instead of trying to flog this dead horse, why don't we use

formatting to be clear on the sequencing? Something like this

(I've taken one possible interpretation of the current text, but

others are possible):

- Upon receipt of a Com event, the t0 (retransmission) timer shall be canceled.

- If the Status [field? of what?] is nonzero, the frame [what frame?] shall be silently discarded, the t0 (retransmission) timer [shall be] set, and the protocol instance shall remain in the Confirmed state. [this should be made into an entirely active phrase "the protocol instance shall…"]

- Otherwise:

- If Sync is greater than dot11RSNASAESync, the protocol instance shall send the parent process a Del event and transitions [no s] back to Nothing state. [and the frame shall be silently discarded?]

- Otherwise:

- If the finite cyclic group is not the same as [in] the previously received SAE Commit message, the frame shall be silently discarded.

- Otherwise, the protocol instance shall increment Sync, increment Sc, transmit its SAE Commit message and its SAE Confirm message with the new Sc value, and set the t0 (retransmission) timer.

Note that I think the ambiguous rambling "stream of consciousness" style

is also used in other locations (e.g. 12.4.8.6.3).

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

ROYAUME UNI WWW: http://www.samsung.com/uk

From: Mark Hamilton <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, 3 October 2021 00:24
To: STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] Resolution to CID 116

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---

Thanks, Nehru. But, your suggested text seems to have gotten munged (I assume), and there are stray “Otherwise”s, or at least some problem parsing the sentences near the words “Otherwise”.

Mark

From: Nehru Bhandaru <00000a7a761100fa-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 2:49 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] Resolution to CID 116

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---

There is also another issue with the text, not related to the comment though. When a Com event is received, the retransmission timer is canceled. So, a fake commit message could have the effect of canceling the timer and discarding the frame. Not sure that should be the right behavior from a security standpoint.

- N

On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 1:45 PM Nehru Bhandaru <nehru.bhandaru@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

There is some text in the same paragraph before the text under discussion - I took another stab and simplifying and clarifying the intended semantics without reordering the phrases (and hopefully not introducing any issues)

Upon receipt of a Com event, the t0 (retransmission) timer shall be canceled. If the Status is nonzero, the frame shall be silently discarded, the t0 (retransmission) timer set, and the protocol instance shall remain in the Confirmed state. If Sync is greater than dot11RSNASAESync, the protocol instance shall send the parent process a Del event and transitions back to Nothing state. If Sync is not greater than dot11RSNASAESync Otherwise, the protocol instance shall verify that the finite cyclic group is the same as the previously received SAE Commit message. If not the verification fails, the frame shall be silently discarded. If soOtherwise, the protocol instance shall increment Sync, increment Sc, and transmit its SAE Commit message and its SAE Confirm message with the new Sc value. It then shall set the t0 (retransmission) timer.

On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 1:33 PM M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi all,

For CID 116, we debated whether we could accept the comment and could not come to an agreement on a proposed resolution. (see the comment and discussed resolutions below)

I would like to initiate a discussion on the reflector to see if we can come to a resolution.

Thanks,

Mike

Here is the comment:

REVme SEC adhoc comments

2554.00

12.4.8.6.5

V

SAE: "<verify X>. If not, <do Y>. If so, <do Z>" construction can be ambiguous since it is not always clear what "if so" is referring to (something in "verify X" vs. "do Y").

Replace
"If Sync is not greater than dot11RSNASAESync, the protocol instance shall verify that the finite cyclic group is the same as the previously received SAE Commit message. If not, the frame shall be silently discarded. If so, the protocol instance shall increment Sync, increment Sc, and transmit its SAE Commit message and its SAE Confirm message with the new Sc value."
with
"If Sync is not greater than dot11RSNASAESync, the protocol instance shall verify that the finite cyclic group is the same as the previously received SAE Commit message. If not, the frame shall be silently discarded. Otherwise, the protocol instance shall increment Sync, increment Sc, and transmit its SAE Commit message and its SAE Confirm message with the new Sc value."

The proposed resolution that was discussed on the call (along with an alternative that was mentioned in the chat):

Replace
"If Sync is not greater than dot11RSNASAESync, the protocol instance shall verify that the finite cyclic group is the same as the previously received SAE Commit message. If not, the frame shall be silently discarded. If so, the protocol instance shall increment Sync, increment Sc, and transmit its SAE Commit message and its SAE Confirm message with the new Sc value."

with

"If Sync is not greater than dot11RSNASAESync, the protocol instance shall verify that the finite cyclic group is the same as in the previously received SAE Commit message. If it is not, the frame shall be silently discarded. Otherwise, the protocol instance shall increment Sync, increment Sc, and transmit its SAE Commit message and its SAE Confirm message with the new Sc value."

Alternative:
ust a suggestion: "If Sync is not greater than dot11RSNASAESync, the protocol instance shall verify that the finite cyclic group is the same as in the previously received SAE Commit message, and if it is not, the frame shall be silently discarded. If Sync is greater than dot11RSNASAESync, the protocol instance shall increment Sync, increment Sc, and transmit its SAE Commit message and its SAE Confirm message with the new Sc value."

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