| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
| --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
All, Returning to the foundation of the working group, how do we fix the issues injected by RCM. If requiring the non-AP STA to do “computation” may put a burden on the non-AP STAs; however to have the AP STA do this may be less of a burden.
(Thinking of simpler, low CPU non-AP STAs such as IOT devices). With this stated, EBSS would need to share the “device ID” to enable functions that are broken by RCM. While there are some lower level items that have depended upon the MAC address, there are also upper layer applications there were depending
on the MAC address to be static. (Captive Portal, Network access, legal intercept to name a couple).
So regardless of the method used to identify the non-AP STA, the identity has to remain intact across all layers. That a man-in-the-middle attack should not render the identity altered such not allowing the original EBSS to be able to identify
a previously connected non-AP STA. A situation similar to the affect of RCM. Realizing this does not address Mark’s request, just putting something out there to think about.
Respectfully, Luther Smith From: Mark Hamilton <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx> --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
All, Please let me (the reflector) know if there is support from others for Straw Poll(s) trying to ask simply if there is consensus on a direction for pre-association scheme(s) to be “non-computation” or “computation”, per Graham’s suggestion. Note that (per my previous email) I do think there is an outstanding request from the end of the Baltimore session to try an “Option 5” Straw Poll. We could that or Graham’s suggestion, both, or one instead of the other. I’m open to any
suggestion that seems like it might get some direction for us. Thanks! Mark P.S., Graham, I am checking on your question about recording the results of a Straw Poll. From: G Smith <gsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Mark, I have been thinking about the results of the polls we had and it is difficult to get a clear picture as may be the votes were split among the schemes. In an attempt to get a clearer picture of where the group wants to go I would like to propose the following Poll: “Would you vote to include in the Draft one or more of the following schemes? Non-computation schemes:
Schemes with Computation:
I would also request if there were any objections to recording the votes. I know this is not normal but this has only been the case is only post-COVID.
Maybe Mark, would you please ask the 802.11 Exec/Chair if it were permitted to ask the group if they would agree to a recorded Straw Poll vote, and further if this has to be unanimous? Depending upon the result of the Poll, it would be a matter of searching for a scheme that had enough support. We could start by polling non-computation versus computation, for example. I would be interested in hearing others’ views, of course. Thanks Graham From: G Smith Just noticed Option 5 is slightly different to option 3 in that the ID is supplied by the network. In option 3 the ID was supplied by the STA. The reasoning behind that was that we already had a network generated ID.
Anyhow, if we want to make the list completely complete, then we should also add MAAD.
Maybe a way ahead is to simply see if there is any way forward at all wrt pre-schemes. A Poll to have pre-schemes at all Then A poll along the lines of “pre-schemes with or without computations” Graham From: G Smith Hi Mark, Re: 5th Option This is the same as the 3rd Option. It was already polled. Graham From: Mark Hamilton <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
All, With 10 days’ notice, as mentioned at the closing plenary yesterday, I am announcing TGbh teleconferences on the following Tuesdays, at 9:30 am ET, for 2 hours:
Agenda and call in details will follow, shortly. Also note that I will be able to attend or chair the call on Jan 31, so one of the Vice Chairs will step in (thanks, Peter and Stephen!). I anticipate that further discussion on the “5th option”, as described below, will be our next item of discussion on the way forward topic. REMINDER: I am looking for a volunteer to champion/lead this discussion. And, we need
to complete the review of the latest proposed resolutions for comments on the D0.2 text. 5th option:
Thanks. Mark To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11 list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11 list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11 list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11&A=1 |