Robert Moskowitz, Verizon November 2011 Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: KMPIG Agenda Atlanta 2011 Date Submitted: November 9, 2011 Source: Robert Moskowitz, Verizon Address 1000 Bent Creek Blvd, MechanicsBurg, PA, USA Voice:+1 (248) 968-9809, e-mail: rgm@labs.htt-consult.com Re: KMP IG Opening Report for September 2011 Session Abstract: Opening report for the KMP IG Session. Purpose: To focus activities during the meeting Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P802.15. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Release: The contributor acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by P802.15. Robert Moskowitz, Verizon

KMPIG Agenda / Opening Report November 2011 KMPIG Agenda / Opening Report Atlanta November 9, 2011 Robert Moskowitz, Verizon

Abstract To provide for a Key Management Protocol for 802.15 November 2011 Abstract To provide for a Key Management Protocol for 802.15 Be KMP agnostic Provide guidelines for specific KMPs like HIP, 802.1X, and IKEv2 To present use scenarios and how a KMP facilitates security in those scenarios. Robert Moskowitz, Verizon

November 2011 Meeting Protocol Please announce your affiliation when you first address the group during a meeting slot Robert Moskowitz, Verizon

Attendance Register Indicate attendance November 2011 https://murphy.events.ieee.org/imat/index Register Indicate attendance Robert Moskowitz, Verizon

Participants, Patents, and Duty to Inform November 2011 All participants in this meeting have certain obligations under the IEEE-SA Patent Policy. Participants: “Shall inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed)” of the identity of each “holder of any potential Essential Patent Claims of which they are personally aware” if the claims are owned or controlled by the participant or the entity the participant is from, employed by, or otherwise represents “Personal awareness” means that the participant “is personally aware that the holder may have a potential Essential Patent Claim,” even if the participant is not personally aware of the specific patents or patent claims “Should inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed)” of the identity of “any other holders of such potential Essential Patent Claims” (that is, third parties that are not affiliated with the participant, with the participant’s employer, or with anyone else that the participant is from or otherwise represents) The above does not apply if the patent claim is already the subject of an Accepted Letter of Assurance that applies to the proposed standard(s) under consideration by this group Quoted text excerpted from IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws subclause 6.2 Early identification of holders of potential Essential Patent Claims is strongly encouraged No duty to perform a patent search Robert Moskowitz, Verizon

Patent Related Links November 2011 Robert Moskowitz, Verizon All participants should be familiar with their obligations under the IEEE-SA Policies & Procedures for standards development. Patent Policy is stated in these sources: IEEE-SA Standards Boards Bylaws http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/sect6-7.html#6 IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual http://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/sect6.html#6.3 Material about the patent policy is available at http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-material.html If you have questions, contact the IEEE-SA Standards Board Patent Committee Administrator at patcom@ieee.org or visit http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/index.html This slide set is available at http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt Robert Moskowitz, Verizon

Call for Potentially Essential Patents November 2011 Call for Potentially Essential Patents If anyone in this meeting is personally aware of the holder of any patent claims that are potentially essential to implementation of the proposed standard(s) under consideration by this group and that are not already the subject of an Accepted Letter of Assurance: Either speak up now or Provide the chair of this group with the identity of the holder(s) of any and all such claims as soon as possible or Cause an LOA to be submitted Robert Moskowitz, Verizon

Minutes Review and vote on July 2011 minutes November 2011 Minutes Review and vote on July 2011 minutes 15-11-0636-00-0kmp-KMPIG-minutes-for- September-2011.doc Robert Moskowitz, Verizon

Goals Produce a Recommended Practice Dependencies November 2011 Goals Produce a Recommended Practice Use 'existing' frames to carry KMP Avoid long time line for amendment Dependencies 802.15.4-2011 TG4e Information Elements

Discussion Information Elements How many IE IDs needed? November 2011 Discussion Information Elements How many IE IDs needed? One! What is max size of value pre 4g? What is max size post 4g? How to support chaining IE format for support Frame flow for support Use of forced ACKs

Discussion Information Elements Other points to discuss November 2011 Discussion Information Elements Managing retransmissions Missed ACKs? Other points to discuss

Information Element Content November 2011 Information Element Content Control Field 1 bit Chaining Flag (yes, last/only one) Chaining REQUIRES frame ACK 7 bit KMP type/Chain count First packet provides KMP type (HIP, IKEv2, SAE, 802.1X, 4-Way- Handshake, vendor) Chain count C=0 is 2nd fragment C=1 is 3rd fragment

Information Element Content November 2011 Information Element Content Control Field 7 bit count with ave 65 bytes Value yield 8KB KMP datagram Warning on Processing Last packet in chain may be indistinguishable from a 1 packet only transmission Will be addressed in the state machine

November 2011 PAR 15-11-0613-04-0kmp-Key-Management-Protocol-PAR.doc 15-11-0665-04-0kmp-kmp-5C-draft.doc Can a single recommended practice by applied to 15.4, 15.6, and 15.7? 15.6 has requested to opt out Special text for differences for each? What are concerns of other groups? Comments from .1, .11, and .21

November 2011 Next Steps