| 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 ---
Hello, I share Mike's concerns. In addition, on (2), by using a single TK you cannibalize 6% of the PN space for encrypted data frames. This is not right. You really need to have independent TK and PN space for these different operations. And
on (3), I am agnostic on hardwiring this new feature to use GMAC-256 but I really don't think it's right to force a pairwise cipher suite choice because of it. That will, I think, hinder adoption which is probably not something you really want to do. 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 On 3/11/25, 8:07 AM, "*** IEEE STDS-802-11 List *** on behalf of M Montemurro" <STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of
montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
Hi Po-kai, Thanks for presenting this contribution in 11mf. Here are my personal technical comments on the proposal: 1) The proposed size of the MIC and the PN in protected control frames is in the order of the size of the content of the control frame. Given these frames are transmitted frequently and at lower data rates, they
will consume significant medium time. Please consider reducing the size of the frame, by at least, truncating the MIC. 2) Personally, I'm not comfortable using the same TK for data confidentiality and control frame protection. A new TK should be derived for control frame protection given that the purpose is not data confidentiality. 3) Another point that I'd like to echo from Dan is that I don't believe there should be a requirement to use GCMP-256 for control frame encryption. I think we need to be more flexible with cipher suite negotiations. Cheers, Mike On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 8:46 AM Huang, Po-kai <po-kai.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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 |