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

Re: [STDS-802-11] TGbh Polling



--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---

All,

 

Please let me (the reflector) know if there is support from others for Straw Poll(s) trying to ask simply if there is consensus on a direction for pre-association scheme(s) to be “non-computation” or “computation”, per Graham’s suggestion.

 

Note that (per my previous email) I do think there is an outstanding request from the end of the Baltimore session to try an “Option 5” Straw Poll.  We could that or Graham’s suggestion, both, or one instead of the other.  I’m open to any suggestion that seems like it might get some direction for us.

 

Thanks! Mark

 

P.S., Graham, I am checking on your question about recording the results of a Straw Poll.

 

From: G Smith <gsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 3:41 PM
To: mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx; STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11] TGbh Polling

 

Hi Mark,

I have been thinking about the results of the polls we had and it is difficult to get a clear picture as may be the votes were split among the schemes.

In an attempt to get a clearer picture of where the group wants to go I would like to propose the following Poll:

 

“Would you vote to include in the Draft one or more of the following schemes?

Non-computation schemes:

  • SMA
  • MAAD
  • IRM
  • Non-encrypted ID in IE (AP allocates)
  • Non-encrypted ID in IE (STA allocates )

 

Schemes with Computation:

  • IRMA
  • RRCM
  • ID encoding”

 

I would also request if there were any objections to recording the votes.  I know this is not normal but this has only been the case is only post-COVID. 

Maybe Mark, would you please ask the 802.11 Exec/Chair if it were permitted to ask the group if they would agree to a recorded Straw Poll vote, and further if this has to be unanimous?

 

Depending upon the result of the Poll, it would be a matter of searching for a scheme that had enough support.  We could start by polling non-computation versus computation, for example.

 

I would be interested in hearing others’ views, of course.

 

Thanks

Graham

 

 

 

From: G Smith
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 11:38 AM
To: mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx; STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11] TGbh conference calls announcement

 

Just noticed Option 5 is slightly different to option 3 in that the ID is supplied by the network.  In option 3 the ID was supplied by the STA.  The reasoning behind that was that we already had a network generated ID. 

Anyhow, if we want to make the list completely complete, then we should also add MAAD.

 

  1. MAAD scheme
    • AP picks MAC to be used next time, as per present rules (local bit).
    • AP tells STA the MAC address it should use for the next association
    • STA maintains list of ESS/SSIDs and latest MAC Addresses.
    • AP maintains list of STA addresses
    • Needs an “opt-in” mechanism (Capability bit or MIB variable?))
  • ADs
    • Simple, easy to implement. 
    • Similar level of privacy as RCM (random MAC address for listener)
      • Network can track STA
    • Provides good protection against copying
    • Meets every Use Case
    • No computations
  • DIS
    • STA is constrained to MAC provided by AP last time.

 

Maybe a way ahead is to simply see if there is any way forward at all wrt pre-schemes.

 

A Poll to have pre-schemes at all

Then

A poll along the lines of “pre-schemes with or without computations”

 

Graham

 

 

From: G Smith
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 10:37 AM
To: mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx; STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-11] TGbh conference calls announcement

 

Hi Mark,

Re: 5th Option

This is the same as the 3rd Option.  It was already polled.

 

Graham

 

From: Mark Hamilton <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2023 8:04 PM
To: STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11] TGbh conference calls announcement

 

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---

All,

 

With 10 days’ notice, as mentioned at the closing plenary yesterday, I am announcing TGbh teleconferences on the following Tuesdays, at 9:30 am ET, for 2 hours:

  • Jan 31
  • Feb 7
  • Feb 14
  • Feb 21
  • Feb 28

 

Agenda and call in details will follow, shortly.

 

Also note that I will be able to attend or chair the call on Jan 31, so one of the Vice Chairs will step in (thanks, Peter and Stephen!).

 

I anticipate that further discussion on the “5th option”, as described below, will be our next item of discussion on the way forward topic.  REMINDER: I am looking for a volunteer to champion/lead this discussion.  And, we need to complete the review of the latest proposed resolutions for comments on the D0.2 text.

 

5th option:

    • Network generates an ID, communicated in 4-way handshake (similar/as done in D0.2)
    • STA returns that ID in a new IE in a non-encrypted frame at next association (Association Request?) and/or pre-association frames
    • ID is changed every association
    • STA maintains list of ESS/SSIDs and IDs.
    • Needs an “opt-in” mechanism
  • Advantages
    • Simple, easy to implement
    • Provides good protection against copying
    • Meets every Use Case
    • No computations
  • Disadvantages
    • Requires new IE
    • Needs to specify some uniqueness to ID (6 octets?)

 

 

Thanks.  Mark


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


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