| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hi, Dan, Well, that is all very pessimistic. But, let me comment on only one point: It is up to the membership to police that we are either within our scope, or that we take steps to change our scope as we see fit. It is not up to the Editor to decide that a motioned piece of text does/does not belong in the draft. So, this concern should have been raised when the motion was made (and perhaps it was, sorry I don’t recall…?). Or, the other mechanism is to submit a comment and have the group agree to remove/modify the text to fit the scope or decide to change the scope. Bashing stuff on the reflector is not going to be helpful, given our procedures. Mark From: Harkins, Dan <daniel.harkins@xxxxxxx> Mark, The TG is not allowed to expand/modify its charter though simple motions on draft text. So it doesn’t matter what was in the motion. PoW is not supposed to be in 12.4. I would venture to point out that what we have as 0.1 is going to be our 1.0. The voting bloc that has been holding things up for the past 9 months is not going to allow any new material to the draft and all we’re gonna do in Vancouver is twiddle our thumbs and wait for the final session where all of the bloc’s 40-or-so voters will be present to promote 0.1 to 1.0 and go to letter ballot in order for the task group to remain “on track”*. For all the PQ imperative, there has been a distinct lack of interest in doing anything, which is why we’ve cancelled all our teleconferences so far. Not sure what we’ll do next Tuesday except say “good job Jay!” and I’m not sure what we’ll do for the first 3 sessions in Vancouver but I’ll bet dollars-to-donuts that it will not be voting in any new text. So we can rearrange what we have in 0.1 as a perfect use of session time in Vancouver. Dan. * and if we end up liaising 1.0 to WFA it will end up being tested and that will be a horrible result as it will mean vendors will be loath to make changes to text which would compel changes to tested code and that means an initial 0.1 chunk of text will end up unchanged through approved amendment and into the base standard, which is not the way to make a standard! -- “the object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius From: Mark Hamilton <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx> Dan (all), In defense of the Editor, the submission which passed our motion said to put that material in a new 12.4.xxx subclause. So, that is “correct”. That said, I see your point, it does seem wrong that the PoW material would be buried in an SAE subclause. Perhaps that specific subclause call-out was just an editorial mistake by the submitter of the material? I would suggest this is an excellent comment on the first ballot/comment collection. (If we start using the reflector and/or meeting time to revisit details in submissions that have been approved to go in, we’re never going to get to a complete draft.) Mark From: Harkins, Dan <00003862fd143b8a-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> The proof-of-work stuff should not be in 12.4 which is the SAE exchange. Since SAE is not a PQC key exchange adding some DDOS prevention stuff to SAE is outside the scope of 11bt. Our scope is limited to PQC key exchanges and the only one we have at the moment is an 802.1X exchange with some glommed on ephemeral key exchanges. So if we’re gonna have PoW stuff in our draft, it needs to move alongside the one and only PQC exchange we’ve defined. Maybe, if/when the PQ SIG decides that we are allowed to have a PQC PAKE in our draft we can move the PoW stuff alongside it but until then, this is out-of-scope and needs to change. Regards, Dan. -- “the object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius From: "Stephen Orr (sorr)" <000015666257037f-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> All, Draft P802.11bt_D0.1 has been posted (https://www.ieee802.org/11/private/Draft_Standards/11bt/index.html). Thank you Jay for all the work to get this done so quickly. Next Teleconference will be Tuesday February 24th 930-1130ET Regards Stephen To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBT list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBT&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBT list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBT&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBT list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBT&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBT list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBT&A=1 |