RE: [LinkSec] Business case for wireless is missing
My opinion is to take a holistic view of all efforts for purposes of
discussions and to learn from what and how has/not been done well - not
for wireless. That implies no requirements on any group that is way far
along in their architecture and standardization necessarily.
-mani
> -----Original Message-----
> From: antti.pietilainen@nokia.com [mailto:antti.pietilainen@nokia.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2003 3:28 AM
> To: stds-802-linksec@ieee.org
> Subject: [LinkSec] Business case for wireless is missing
>
>
>
> The wireless standards groups,namely .11, .15, and .16 have done a
great
> deal of work for security and we can learn and copy from them if
> necessary. However, we should avoid making any requirements on their
> standards. Thus, I propose that we leave .11, .15, and .16 out of the
> scope of link security project.
>
> There has been discussion of roaming between .3, .11, .15, and .16.
and a
> need for common security. The wireless standards have secrurity
> implemented. One could consider what is required from .3 security to
be
> able to roam with the wireless MACs and let the wireless MACs be
> untouched.
>
> Antti
>
> Antti Pietilainen
> Nokia Research Center
> P.O. Box 407
> FIN-00045 NOKIA GROUP
> Finland
> tel. +358-(0)71-8036660, fax. +358-(0)71-8036214
> email: antti.pietilainen@nokia.com