Re: stds-802-handoff: Addressing Security, was :ThursdayHandoff meeting time.

["Clint Chaplin" <cchaplin@sj.symbol.com>]

I have an agenda item at the July 802.11 opening plenary for a Call for Interest for a fast roaming/fast handoff TG within 802.11.

I am also working on a preliminary PAR and 5 criteria for a possible 802.11 TG for fast roaming/fast handoff, but I've missed the deadline for submitting same at this plenary.

It seems that the sentiment within this SG is that two complementary groups is necessary; however, I'm not sure how to communicate this to 802.11 or REVCOM.  I someone willing to help me at the Call for Interest and the writing of the five criteria to justify the existance of a new TG within 802.11?

Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
>>> Ajay Rajkumar <ajayrajkumar@lucent.com> 06/25/03 07:02 AM >>>
It may be worth pointing out that the 802 Handoff SG was mandated to look at handoff across 802 and not be restricted to 802.11 per se, which is what 802.11 TGi may be looking at. For example, we spent a lot of time in May discussing this very issue of handoff between 802.11 and 802.20.

So even though fast handoff/fast roaming within 802.11 may come under the purview of this SG, there may still be a difference in the narrow vs. wider focus.

At the same time it would definitely be prudent to keep these issues in mind at the time of developing the PAR.

BTW, are there any plans of writing a PAR prior to July meeting or would it be one of the agenda items for the July meeting?

-ajay

Clint Chaplin wrote:

> Well, there is currently a debate about splitting off fast handoff/fast roaming issues from 802.11 TGi, and the most appropriate forum to put this issue into.  This was discussed yesterday at the 802.11 TGi ad-hoc, at which point someone raised the question of whether your SG may be the most appropriate, rather than a TG within 802.11.  Thus, the question.
>
> I'm not sure I asked the correct question, nor am I sure that whatever issue I was trying to raise was answered.  The Fast Handoff SG may turn out to be the most appropriate place to work on security protocols in fast handoff situations (if you can't do fast handoff securely, then its utility is constrained).
>
> I've got an agenda item at the July 802.11 plenary for a call for interest for Fast handoff/fast roaming within 802.11, but the sense of the body may be that this group would be the most appropriate place....
>
> Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
> >>> "Johnston, Dj" <dj.johnston@intel.com> 06/24/03 20:35 PM >>>
> Clint,
> Being a study group, whether or not we address security is a matter for
> debate until we agree on a PAR. However I feel that there is some
> consensus as to how far security needs to be addressed. Please correct
> me if I'm wrong on that..
>
> 1) We should not define security algorithms. That is for crypto experts.
> 2) We should not define security protocols. That is addressed elsewhere.
> Adding more will not help matters.
> 3) Security protocols and procedures may benefit from information that
> can be made available through handoff mechanisms we hypothetically might
> design. So we would be correct to analyse the likely needs of the
> security protocols defined elsewhere and make sure we don't break them,
> and if possible enable them to work in a handoff scenario.
>
> Put more succinctly, we are here to do handoff stuff, handoff stuff is
> to some extent linked to security activities and we need to take that
> into account, but getting into defining security protocols would be
> overstepping the mark.
>
> DJ
>
> David Johnston
> Intel Corporation
> Chair, IEEE 802 Handoff ECSG
>
> Email : dj.johnston@intel.com
> Tel   : 503 380 5578 (Mobile)
> Tel   : 503 264 3855 (Office)
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Clint Chaplin [mailto:cchaplin@sj.symbol.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 5:47 PM
> > To: stds-802-handoff@ieee.org; Johnston, Dj
> > Subject: Re: stds-802-handoff: Thursday Handoff meeting time.
> >
> >
> > You'll probably tell me if I am wrong, but didn't I overhear
> > that security would >not< be addressed by this SG?  And if
> > so, was this because of the lack of expertiese in the SG, or
> > for other reasons?
> >
> >
> > Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned for computer viruses.


________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for computer viruses.