September 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2594r2
IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs
September 2007 Interim Session (Waikoloa, Hawaii, USA)
Date: 2007-09-17
Author(s):
Name / Company / Address / Phone / email
Peter Yee / RSA Security / 2955 Campus Drive, Suite 400, San Mateo, CA 94403 / +1 650 295 7720 /
Monday, September 17, 2007, 10:00 AM to 12:30 PM
Chair: Jesse Walker
Acting recording secretary: Peter Yee
Call to order and agenda
Meeting called to order on Monday, September 17, 2007 by Jesse Walker at 10:30 a.m. Hawaiian Time. The chair then reviewed the following topics from the agenda:
· The chair disclosed his affiliation as Intel Corporation
· The TG Agenda is document number 11-07/2490r0.
· The chair read the IEEE patent policy
o The chair called for questions from the membership, and none were forthcoming, indicating that the membership understood the policy
o The chair requested information on patent claims and called for letters of assurance, and none were forthcoming
· The chair called for adoption of the agenda by unanimous consent. No changes were recorded, and the agenda was adopted.
· Goals for September 2007 meeting
o Comment resolution for Letter Ballot 102
o Draft 3.0 for next recirculation ballot if comments are resolved.
· Submissions
o 11-07-0714-11-000w-lb-102-comment-resolution-spreadsheet.xls
o 11-07-2440-01-000w-mandatory-capabilities.ppt
o 11-07-2441-00-000w-sa-teardown-protection.ppt
o 11-07-2461-r1-000w-sa-teardown-protection-text.doc
· Approval of the minutes of previous meetings
o San Francisco, July 2007 (11-07/2178r0)
· The chair asked for corrections; none were required
· The chair moved for approval by unanimous consent
· There was no objection from the task group, so the minutes are approved
Presentation: 11-07/714r11, LB 102 Comment Resolution Spreadsheet, Nancy Cam-Winget (Cisco)
New comment resolution group categories for LB 102 have been added since July:
· Group #4 is acceptable resolutions that have been reflected by previous motions and updates affected in previous drafts (2.1 and 2.2) - no changes required from previous draft text, suggests the editor. That suggestion to be voted on by the TG.
· Group #5 are acceptable resolutions that have not been discussed but can be adopted as they have been affected and updated by 2.2
· Group #6 includes newly proposed or updated resolutions based on previous adopted motions that affect prior proposed resolutions
· Group #7 new proposed or updated resolutions incorporated into 2.3
· Group #8 accommodate updates in 2.3 per comment suggestion and updated comment resolution to reflect new update
Groups 4 and 5 can likely be cleared by a vote of the group, while groups 6, 7, 8, and 0 will require review by the task group prior to being accepted.
Motion (10:59 a.m.): “Move to accept resolutions for Group #4 as proposed in 11-07-0714-11”. This motion refers to LB 102.
· Moved by Nancy Cam-Winget, seconded by Henry Ptasinski (Broadcom). No debate on the motion.
· Vote: 6 in favor, 0 against, 0 abstentions.
· Motion passes.
Motion (11:02 a.m.): “Move to accept resolutions for Group #5 as proposed in 11-07-0714-11”. This motion refers to LB 102.
· Nancy Cam-Winget moved, seconded by Kapil Sood (Intel).
· No debate on the motion.
· Vote: 6 in favor, 0 against, 0 abstentions.
· Motion passes.
Group #6 requires review and input from the working group. Doing so will result in an update of the document and a new version (12) of the document. The editor walked the group through the comments. Comments with discussion are noted below:
· 423 – the field name is changed to drop “Octet” to align. The editor will indicate the clauses and figures affected by this change in the resolution description.
· No other technical CIDs generated substantial comment and the editor comments were reviewed en masse.
Group #7 was reviewed by the group. It was described as trivial technical resolutions and minor editorial issues. These resolutions were created by the editor. Not all resolutions were incorporated in draft 2.3. Notes:
· 474 – Jouni Malinen (Devicescape Software) requested that the resolution clarify what the actual change entails as the resolution was not specific.
Group #8 was similarly reviewed by the group. It is mostly moved from technical to technical trivial status. The editor has created proposed resolutions and incorporated these resolutions into draft 2.3. These resolutions bring some previously adopted resolutions in line with other resolutions with which they had clashed. There was no discussion on resolutions made.
Group #0 generated additional discussion since there were some resolutions which had not been made prior to the meeting. Two CIDs 58 and 59 are moved to a newly created Group #9 to be dealt with during the evening meeting.
Motion (12:17 p.m.): “Move to accept the resolutions for LB 102 Group #6 as proposed in 11-07-714-12.”
· Moved by Nancy Cam-Winget, seconded by Kapil Sood
· No debate on the motion.
· Vote: 7 in favor, 0 against, 0 abstentions.
· Motion passes.
Motion (12:18 p.m.): “Move to accept the resolutions for LB 102 Groups #7, 8, 9, and 0 as proposed in 11-07-714-12.”
· Moved by Nancy Cam-Winget, seconded by Mike Mountemurro
· No debate on the motion.
· Vote: 7 in favor, 0 against, 0 abstentions.
· Motion passes.
The meeting recessed at 12:20 p.m. until the evening session at 7:30 p.m., with no objection.
Monday, September 17, 2007, 7:30 PM to 9:30 PM
Chair: Jesse Walker
Acting recording secretary: Peter Yee
Call to order and agenda
Meeting called to order on Monday, September 17, 2007 by Jesse Walker at 7:37 p.m. Hawaiian Time. The chair reminded attendees to record attendance. The chair also inquired of the attendees if there were any letters of assurance that needed to be made known. There were known.
Presentation: 11-07/2441r1, SA Teardown Protection for 802.11w, Joe Epstein (Meru Networks)
· 802.11w protects deauthentications and disassociations, but is does not protect against SA teardowns from other sources.
· SA teardowns occur when one of the following happens:
o Successful (Re)association Confirm primitive for STA
o (Re)association Indication primitive for AP
o Invocation of Disassociation or Deauthentication primitive for everyone
· Deauthentication and Disassociation are recovered from fairly quickly, but SA teardowns cause major problems which end with the STA in limbo.
· The proposal gives a couple of choices that attempt to reduce the problem, both of which use a ping test
o Choice I: Remove association teardown
o Choice II: Have the non-AP STA detect a teardown, to speed up recovery
· Removal of association teardown adds two new rules
o If an AP has an SA for a STA, and it receives an Association frame, quickly test for the presence of the existing PTKSA
o Non-AP STA initiating Associations need to ignore all Ping Requests from the AP the STA is associating to.
o A refreshed/blank STA coming in will face a small delay after the Association Request.
· Keeping the teardown semantics (choice II) could be done, but an association is checked using pings rather than null packets, so that the STA can re-associate relatively quickly once it determines that the AP no longer has an SA for it.
· Epstein prefers Choice I because:
o Only requires testing on Association requests – minimal extra network overhead
o Low time overhead as well
· Choice II has greater overhead than Choice I
· Choice I works well with Fast Transitions, but FTs not required for this proposal.
· Normative text matching this presentation is found in 11-07/2461r1.
There’s great interest in the proposal, but some level of skepticism regarding putting it in to the next version of 802.11w in the proposal’s current form.
Presentation: 11-07/714r12, LB 102 Comment Resolution Spreadsheet – Comment 58, Nancy Cam-Winget (Cisco)
Comment 58 is to be rejected because the proposed change given in 11-07-2461r1 lacks sufficient detail to incorporate it into the draft. This is acceptable to the commenter as he will have the opportunity to revise his suggested text for the next letter ballot.
Presentation: 11-07/714r12, LB 102 Comment Resolution Spreadsheet – Comment 59, Nancy Cam-Winget (Cisco)
This comment will also be rejected as it lacks sufficient detail.
Motion (8:59 p.m.): “Move to accept resolutions for LB 102 Group #9 as proposed in 11-07-0714-13.”
· Moved by Nancy Cam-Winget, seconded by Joe Epstein
· Vote: 5 in favor, 0 against, and 0 abstentions
· Motion passes.
Motion (9:00 p.m.): “Move to instruct the editor to create P802.11w D3.0 by incorporating changes to P802.11w D2.3 approved at the September 2007 meeting”.
· Moved by Joe Epstein, seconded by Kapil Sood
· Vote: 4 in favor, 0 against, and 0 abstentions
· Motion passes.
Presentation: 11-07/2440r1, Mandatory Capabilities for 802.11w, Joe Epstein (Meru Networks)
Not having normative text, Joe Epstein declined to present the slides given in 11-07/2440r1 but rather talked about the objectives of his proposal. The proposal entails adding a mandatory capabilities field in the RSN IE for mandatory features not covered by cipher and key management suites. This mechanism would help prevent pre-11w STAs trying to associate with 11w-only APs.
· Henry Ptasinski suggested using a new AKM to keep pre-11w STAs from trying to associate unsuccessfully.
· Jouni Malinen feels that a new IE would be a cleaner method to achieve mandatory capabilities.
Further editorial changes not covered here should be given to the editor, Nancy Cam-Winget, by 4 p.m. Hawaii Time on Wednesday, September 19, 2007.
Seeing no objection, the meeting recessed at 9:30 p.m. to resume Thursday at 10:30 a.m.
Thursday, September 20, 2007, 10:30 AM to 12:30 PM
Chair: Jesse Walker
Acting recording secretary: Peter Yee
Call to order and agenda
Meeting called to order on Thursday, September 20, 2007 by Jesse Walker at 10:30 a.m. Hawaiian Time. The chair then reviewed the following topics from the agenda:
· As per the 802.11 policies & procedures, the chair called for patents and letters of assurance. No response was made by the attendees.
Motion (10:32 a.m.): “To request the 802.11 Working Group authorize a 15-day Working Group Recirculation Ballot on P802.11w D3.0”
· Moved by Kapil Sood, seconded by Nancy Cam-Winget
· Vote: 5 in favor, 0 against, and 0 abstentions
· Motion passes
A discussion on whether to have an ad hoc meeting arose. An ad hoc is not merited prior to the closing of the letter ballot, which is a currently unknown date. Jesse Walker suggested that either an ad hoc or a teleconference held the week of November 7th would likely work time-wise. Draft 3.0 is the last ballot on which the task group will receive substantive comments. Moving to sponsor ballot quickly after the letter ballot would best be served by having an ad hoc to resolve letter ballot comments with alacrity, but it really comes down to a question of availability of volunteers and their bandwidth. A single-day ad hoc in Silicon Valley (Jesse Walker offered to host at Intel Santa Clara) was suggested.
Motion (10:43 a.m.): “Move to hold a TGw ad hoc on Wednesday, November 7, 2007, in Santa Clara, CA from 9 AM to 4 PM PT”.
· Moved Peter Yee, seconded Nancy Cam-Winget
· Adopted by unanimous consent.
Meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Submission page 6 Peter Yee for RSA Security