| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi G, Thanks for your comments! Regarding SP1154, a key assumption is that AMP APs are powerful devices, so it is assumed that AMP APs should implement all cipher algorithms chosen by non-AP AMP STAs. That’s
why security parameters negotiation is not needed, and non-AP AMP STA can have very simple security implementations (each non-AP AMP STA only needs to implement one security solution best suited its use cases). In addition, we can find plenty of references
in the literature that suggest pure software implementations of CCMP128 and GCMP256 on ARM R series (popular cores on Wi-Fi APs) can deliver more than 10-100Mbps throughput, totally sufficient for 11bp data rate. So the idea of letting AMP AP implement multiple
security solutions can be realized by using software, at near zero cost. Regarding SP0942, I have received many different opinions. Some suggest STA’s self-generated short IDs should be sufficient for most of cases, different from what you commented
here. I think we need more time to discuss and reach consensus. That’s why I limited the scope of SP0942 to be a conditional one --- only if an AP has to assign a short ID to a STA due to one or more reasons: (1) the STA’s self-generated short ID collided
with another STA and must be corrected in order for the AP to communicate with the STA 1:1; (2) the STA has not generated or cannot generate a short ID for itself and the short ID is needed by the AP in order to do 1:1 communication with the STA; and (3) the
STA’s short ID should be changed by the AP for privacy reasons. I agree (3) may need more discussions. So I can exclude (3) for the time being. Best regards, Hui From: Guy-Armand Kamendje <guy-armand@xxxxxxxx>
Hi Hui, Regarding SP1154: I think the AP should provide some form of feedback to the STA. Consider the following scenario where the STA implements cipher A and cipher B. The STA starts by indicating cipher A in its security parameters. However the AP only supports
cipher B. It would be nice if the AP could indicate that it only supports cipher B. I favor giving both parties the ability to negotiate the security parameters they want to use. Regarding SP0942: "or (3) the non-AP AMP STA’s short ID should be changed for privacy reasons" this requires more clarification. It is unclear whether the AP or the non-AP STA decides that the
short ID should be changed. I would prefer if the short ID assignment bookkeeping occurred entirely at the AP. That would remove the requirement for the non-AP STA to manage its short ID lifecycle. This would also allow a non-AP STA to interact with multiple
APs using different short IDs. G On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 10:19 AM Hui Luo <0000594db8d8d1cb-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBP list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBP&A=1 |