Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] Resolutions for some comments on 11me/D1.0 (LB258)

Thread Links	Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

CID 1637: I'm not really convinced that we need to add a NOTE saying "A Self-protected Action frame is not necessarily protected." That seems to make this more confusing than not having the sentence there. In other words, I'd probably vote against that resolution. I don't have a better resolution to propose for this apart from likely being willing to support the comment getting rejected.

CID 1881: The changes to 12.4.8.6.3 are inconvenient to review since they are against the old version of those subclause and do not include things like fixing the case of SAE_HASH_TO_ELEMENT in the Status code field. I think I can support many of the changes proposed here, but I want to make sure this does not end up deleting some of the earlier (and IMHO, more important) fixes. Ideally, I'd like to see a redline against the current draft, but I do understand this means more work. I'm also not in favor of the "the password identifier, if any" as a replacement to "checking whether a password identifier is present". It is not clear that "the password identifier" is referencing the optionally present element in the received frame. That followed by "If a password identifier is present" feels confusing. Maybe "if included" instead of "if any" could be somewhat clearer.

CID 1273..: "except a Supplicant with which it is currently performing a 4-way handshake, in which case if it has not yet transmitted message 3 it may deliver the GTK in that message instead, or otherwise it shall initiate the group key handshake after the end of the 4-way handshake" feels a bit unclear for that initiation of a group key handshake.. Is that clear enough to be understood that this specific case of the group key handshake is just with this specific Supplicant and not the other ones? Maybe something like ".. with this Supplicant" at the end could clarify this(?).

On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 12:02 AM Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---

I have uploaded 22/0353r7. This contains resolutions for CIDs 2079, 2095/1368,

1414, 2010/1653, 1777/1776, 1837/1836, 1838, 1840, 1486, 1674, 1951, 1984, 1987,

2047, 1926, based on the directions last week, plus the updated resolutions for

CIDs 2187, 1985/1986/1535/1419/1536 based on the recent reflector discussions.

To help optimise the discussions next week, please review this and tell me ASAP

if you have any corrections or other comments.

Thanks,

Mark

--

Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN   English/Esperanto/Français

Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre       Tel: +44 1223 434600

Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS      Fax: +44 1223 434601

ROYAUME UNI                             WWW: http://www.samsung.com/uk

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGM list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM&A=1

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGM list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM&A=1