Re: [STDS-802-11] Solicit feedback for document 11-25/260

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

Hi Po-kai,

I just wanted to respond to my comments on this presentation (not as Chair of 11mf but as an individual member). I didn't have time in March and you requested a motion for the April teleconference for TGmf. I also wanted to give you time to address my comments.

I haven't seen formal responses to my comments. In offline discussions, my understanding is that part of the design criteria for this protocol has to do with design limitation of certain products with respect to this feature. That being the case, could we modify the contribution to include a mechanism that allows for negotiation of the control protection mechanism. In that way, we have the flexibility to add alternative mechanisms in the future.

For instance, one severe limitation for this proposal is that the protocol requires GCMP-256 to be negotiated, which locks a STA to negotiate only that cipher suite for the foreseeable future. It would make more sense to allow the cipher suite to be negotiated. Personally, I would like to see a protocol developed that is more extensible so that different ciphers and control protection schemes can be negotiated.

Cheers,

Mike

On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 11:07 AM M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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:

Hi,

                I presented document 11-25/260 in revmf session yesterday and I am working on addressing the comments received during the presentation.

              As instructed, I send this email to see if there are further feedbacks for the document.

              Please let me know if you have further feedbacks.

Best,

Po-Kai

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