| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hi Dan,
Thanks for the comments.
I received some comments from the author of CPACEOQUAE(+) protocol last week，and understand the current protocol is not mature. He requested I can defer to adopt the CPACEOQUAKE(+) protocol into 802.11 SPEC. That make sense to me, we can wait for a while. That's why I just leave some general description for CID15 in the pdt .
no authentication mode is covered in the pdt indeed, please help review it again.
Hope the above explanation can address you concern, and welcome the further insight.
Thanks
Best Regards
Jay Yang (杨志杰)
Jay,
CIDs 15 and 40 specifically ask for a PAKE (40 also asks for an unauthenticated exchange). 11-26/935r1 does not specify either.
We never got around to discussing PAKEs but a proper resolution of 15 and 40 would be adoption of 11-26/0089r4 (hybrid PAKE ) and 11-26/0545r1 (hybrid PQC OWE exchange).
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
On 5/13/26, 4:42 PM, "Jay Yang" <yang.zhijie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Mark,
11-26/935r1 is present in Monday, and I make some changes according to the members feedback. And now I think it's ready for motion
Could you help add the following motion text to the motion list:
Motion text:
Incorporate the text change in the CR document 11-26/935r2 for the following CIDs into the next 802.11bt draft:
CID 15,16,40
Thanks
Best Regards
Jay Yang (杨志杰)
Original
From: MarkHamilton <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>
To: STDS-802-11-TGBT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-11-TGBT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
Date: 2026年05月13日 22:00
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBT] TGbt comments ready for motion
All,
I have attempted to catch-up the TGbt comment database, per our agreements so far this week. As a reminder, anyone can access the database (read only), here: https://802tools.org/comments/802.11/comments/CC52.
The same resolutions are available in spreadsheet form, here: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/26/11-26-0853-02-00bt-ieee-802-11bt-cc52-comments.xlsx.
Please review, per the proposed motions below, for consideration at the Thursday AM1 TGbt meeting.
I believe the following motions are ready to be considered by the group:
1) Approve the comment resolutions on the “General_Editorial” tab in https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/26/11-26-0853-02-00bt-ieee-802-11bt-cc52-comments.xlsx and incorporate the text changes into the TGbt draft. (CIDs : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 37, 49, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88.)
2) Approve the comment resolutions only for CIDs 21 and 24 on the “Crypto Agility” tab in https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/26/11-26-0853-02-00bt-ieee-802-11bt-cc52-comments.xlsx and incorporate the text changes into the TGbt draft.
3) Approve the comment resolution only for CID 17 on the “802_1X” tab in https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/26/11-26-0853-02-00bt-ieee-802-11bt-cc52-comments.xlsx and incorporate the text changes into the TGbt draft.
4) Approve the comment resolutions only for CIDs 46, 47, 63, 64, 65, 66, 73, 74, 82, 86 on the “PTK Derivation” tab in https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/26/11-26-0853-02-00bt-ieee-802-11bt-cc52-comments.xlsx and incorporate the text changes into the TGbt draft.
I also have noted the following issues/items to consider or review:
· CID 13: This CID is included in Po-Kai’s 11-26/921r4 as a General/Editorial, however, it was not listed on the agenda deck and was not explicitly mentioned during this session.
· CID 17: Requested to be withdrawn by commenter , but TG has not reviewed/agreed with the withdrawal
· CIDs 44, 48 and 50: In 11-26/0938, but with “Secret salt”. Straw Poll direction was to not make the salt a secret. So what is the status plan for these? (Not explicitly in Po-Kai’s 11-26/921.)
· CID 46: There is a subtle scope change in this resolution, from the review of 11-26/1040r3 (which said that 11-26/921r2 made a specific wording change) to the resolution in 11-26/1040r5 (which says to make _all_ changes marked with CID 86 in 11-26/921r2). And, then the resolution of CID 86 has been updated to the changes in 11-26/921r4. Assuming CID 86 is agreed (with all the changes shown in 11-26/921r4) this is probably fine, but the dependency on that agreement is noted.
· CIDs 66 and 82: Similar to CID 46, the changes for CID 86 have been updated to 11-26/921r4, since these were reviewed by the TG .
· CIDs 63, 64, 65 and 86: Of course, these need to be reconsidered by the TG on Thursday AM1, with the planned updates to create 11-26/921r5.
Mark
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