August 2007 doc.: IEEE 802.11-07/2004r1
IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs
Date: 2007-08-15
Author(s):
Name / Company / Address / Phone / email
Kapil Sood / Intel Corp. / 2111 NE 25th Ave JF3-206, Hillsboro OR 97006 / +1 503 264 3759 /
Thursday, June 14, 2007, 12:30-1:30 PM EST
Chair: Jesse Walker
Acting recording secretary: Kapil Sood
Attendees: Jesse Walker, Nancy Cam-Winget, Kapil Sood, Abhijit Choudhury, Richard Talbott, Dorothy Stanley,
Call to order and agenda
Meeting called to order on Thursday, June 14, 2007 by Jesse Walker at 12:33 Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). The chair then reviewed the following topics from the agenda:
· The Chair made everyone aware of the IEEE patent policy
· Everyone aware of patent policy and no LOA at this time
· Affiliation: Kapil (Intel), Abhi (Cisco), Nancy (Cisco), Richard (John Hopkins Univ. Applied Phhysics Labs), Dorothy (Aruba)
· Agenda is to resolve comments from LB# 102
· The meeting Agenda is to go over comments resolution in document number 11-07/0714r4
· 11w editor (Nancy) updated the group on making the spreadsheet consistent. Nancy to lead the discussions.
o Gaps in the comment spreadsheet. Group started in Clause 8, and anything before Clause 8 may be dependent on resolutions of Clause 8
o Line #313: Trivial Technical. Group should have passed a motion to allow editor to resolve trivial technical comments.
o CID 662: The confusion arose from the “if” conditions and from the statements. This is needed to support legacy (non-11w) STAs. This CID was “Accept in Principle” with adding clarifying comments in this section of the pseudo-code. Editor added the suggested text into comment resolution column.
o CID 368: Clarify that the capabilities field is RSNIE capabilities field.
o CID 369: Discussed what the commenter wanted to see – just remove the Tx from the “if”, or something else. We need to be consistent between Tx and Rx capabilities – so, we should be explicit. Accept in Principle but modify to “set to one for transmitter”.
o CID 370: Base standard uses same language for fragments and management frames – so, there is some unclarity here. This CID relates to an implementation issue.
· STA has to fragment and then encrypt for CCMP. Inserting KeyID should happen after fragmentation and before encryption.
· We mixed concerns here, and we are fixing 11w and not base draft.
o This clause needs to be handled in its’ entirety/wholistically.
· Bundle all comments related to pseudo code as a single submission.
· Discuss this at the adhoc meeting, and/or at the San Francisco meeting.
· Reminder for adhoc meeting on June 25-26, 2007. So far, Nancy has said she’ll attend.
· Reminder of next conf call on July 9th. Jesse will send out reminder.
· Nancy will post 11-07/0714r5 on IEEE server.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007, 12:30-1:30 PM EST
Chair: Jesse Walker
Acting recording secretary: Kapil Sood
Attendees: Jesse Walker, Kapil Sood, Abhijit Choudhury, Matt Gast, Dorothy Stanley
Call to order and agenda
Meeting called to order on Wednesday August 15, 2007 by Jesse Walker at 12:33 Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). The chair then reviewed the following topics from the agenda:
· The Chair made everyone aware of the IEEE patent policy
· Everyone aware of patent policy and no LOA at this time
· Agenda is to resolve comments from LB# 102
· Nancy sent an email to look at Group 0 of 11-07-0714-10-000w-lb-102-comment-resolution-spreadsheet.xls
o There is only 1 comment in this group.
o CID 58: Discussion on this comment, and there is a similar problem with 11r. Not clear that the problem warrants a new solution, as what is in the standard is suitable.
· What does SA going stale mean? The unidata ACK will come back if the lower layer has sent the data. If no ACK, then STA may try to get a new one.
· These pings may also fall into a black hole. If deauth/disassoc is sent after keys, then that mustbe authenticated.
· Comment talks about a scenario that STA is associated with the AP and its SA is not live. There are 4 cases – all parties have key – OK; AP has key- STA doesn’t – STA will time out; AP no key, STA has key – Packets are going into black hole; Neither has keys – dealth with it.
· Note to editor => Add to comment resolution: “Commentor’s case is of an AP reboots. This proposal talks about an optimization of the solution that already exists. It appears that the “ping” and “pong” have to be protected to be of any value – so, we end up trading for another DoS problem.”
o CID 35, 56:
· Matt’s submission (11-07-2239r0) was accepted that indicated that this will be last IE.
· Note to editor => Proposed Resolution “Reject. Submission (11-07-2239r0) was accepted that indicated that this will be last IE.”
o CID 59:
· Wait for the commentor to come back with a submission
· In SFO meeting, commentor had indicated bringing a submission on this. So, if a submission is put forward, then it will be discussed.
o CID 84
· There are multicast/broadcast references in 802.11-2007.
· Note to editor => However, if 11n is going to deprecate this, then 11w needs to be sync-ed with it.
· Jesse to ask the commentor (Adrian Stephens) for more details on what the commentor would like changed.
o LB 88, CID 1029
· Needs to be reworded.
· Discuss this at next conf call, as at that time, we would have a new D2.2 posted.
· Everyone OK with this
o Next Conf call on Aug 28th – Bridge sent by Jesse on TGw reflector.
o Adjourned.
Submission page 1 Kapil Sood