Hi Bo,
If you’re updating this presentation then can you also do the following please?
- In 12.7.6.2.4 the changed text goes under the heading “Key Data = "" and so what the dashed entries should start with is the thing there followed by the condition. For instance, there
is an existing line that says “An OCI KDE, if dot11RSNAOperatingChannelValidationActivated is true on the Supplicant”. That’s the right order. So please change your new text to “A PQC Parameter element for PTK rekeying if the AKM is AKM 00-0F-AC:31 or AKM
00-0F-AC:32”. This change should also be made to 12.7.6.3.4, page 9 line 4 of your submission.
- On page 8 line 7-8 of your submission it says to “…include the ephemeral public key in the PQC Parameter element.” That is ambiguous as the method of “inclusion” is not mentioned.
If you look at the baseline where similar public key operations are made you will see language about how this key gets encoded. So can you change your text to say, “…derive the corresponding ephemeral public key from the private key, and encode the public
key in the PQC Parameter element according to the element to octet string conversion rules in 12.4.7.2.4.” This change should also be done on page 8 line 35 of your submission where the response is generated. Encode that public key according to the appropriate
conversion rules.
- Similar to #2 it says, “…and include the ephemeral encapsulation key in the PQC Parameter element.” That is also ambiguous but given that the encapsulation key should not require explicit
encoding rules the way an ECC public key does I think it might be better to just say “…and copy the ephemeral encapsulation key into the PQC Parameter element.” This change should also be made to page 8 lines 37 and 38 of your submission where you “include”
the ciphertext. Just say you “Copy the ciphertext into the PQC Parameter element.”
Thanks,
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 9/17/26, 9:25 AM, "Hyung-Nam Choi5" <000063747825b92d-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Dear Bo,
I want to come back to your revised 1863r1. Before it will go to Motion today, can you please fix the following two editorial issues for consistency reasons:
1.
12.7.6.2, page 8: comma should be deleted and word “General” should be set in brackets.
2.
12.7.6.3, page 9: term “AKM” should be added for 00-0F-AC:32.
BR
Hyung-Nam / Lenovo
From: Bo Cao <cao.bo4@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2026 3:32 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [External] [STDS-802-11-TGBT] LB297 CR for 4WHS-Review and Editorial CIDs
Hi All,
The 4WHS-Review and Editorial CIDs assigned to me (19 CIDs) have been addressed in
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/26/11-26-1863-00-00bt-lb297-cr-4whs-review-and-editorial-part.docx. Comments
are welcome.
Hi Stephen,
Could you please add this submission to the agenda of the Wednesday or Thursday session?
Thank you!
Best Regards,
Bo Cao (ZTE)
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