| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi All, Based on the feedback from the previous call and discussions on the reflector, the group seems to be favoring extending existing field in the WNM Response frame.
I have revised the PDT to define new subelements within the Key Data field to carry MLO group keys.
The attached doc also incorporates feedback received from Mark R. Could you please take a look at the attached doc and let me know if you have further feedback? Regards, From: Cariou, Laurent <laurent.cariou@xxxxxxxxx> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of
the organization. Hi all, I think we should really limit as much as possible the use of the different Types, as this will highly complicate the parsing. We have designed the common part so that we can indicate if fields are present or not, we should use that. Similarly, the per-STA part is made of subelements so that we can include what we need, while having the same structure. If we want to have some indications that are fields and not elements, we can easily include a control field that will
indicate the presence of the fields (same as the common part). Best, Laurent From: Rojan Chitrakar <rojan.chitrakar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Yongho, Yes, I am aware that we have defined GTK, IGTK, BIGTK KDEs in D0.3, however these are not subelements. If we go the subelement route, anyway we also need to define new subelements for each procedure (WNM, Fast BSS Transition, FILS etc.)
in order to signal the Link Ids of the APs, so it is not really straightforward reusing of existing subelements as well. While I agree with you that we should have a single consistent method, I think that using ML element is the better option. Instead of limiting to WNM case, we could expand the usage of Abhi’s new variant of ML element so that it can cater
for all Key distributions scenarios, may be rename it “Key Distribution variant ML element“? Perhaps we can even revisit whether the new KDEs in D0.3 can be changed to use this ML element so that we have one unified way to distribute the keys. This approach
is also similar to the inclusion of the Multi-band element in the 4-way handshake messages. Implementation wise this will also make the parsing simpler since a single ML element variant need to be parsed instead of different subelements. What do you think? Regards, Rojan From: Yongho Seok <yongho.seok@xxxxxxxxx>
Hi Rojan, KDE format also needs to carry GTK, IGTK, and BIGTK of other APs. On that purpose, in D0.3, we already defined the MLO GTK, MLO IGTK, and MLO BIGTK subelements, instead of creating a new variant of the ML element. This way is the same approach done in the Multi-band GTK KDE. In addition to the WNM Sleep Mode Response, Fast BSS Transition IE needs to carry GTK, IGTK, and BIGTK of other APs. My preference is that all three just use a single consistent way. In that sense, it is straightforward to follow the same
way done in KDE. Otherwise, too many variants of the ML element are needed for this simple usage scenarios. You know, FILS has not been discussed yet, if it is supported in MLO, Key Delivery element is also need to be updated... Regards, Yongho 2021년 1월 25일
(월)
오후 6:16, Rojan Chitrakar <rojan.chitrakar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>님이
작성:
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1 |
Attachment:
11-21-0055-01-00be-MAC-PDT-spec_text_for_motions_on_MLO-power-save-procedure - WNM Sleep.docx
Description: 11-21-0055-01-00be-MAC-PDT-spec_text_for_motions_on_MLO-power-save-procedure - WNM Sleep.docx