1. Proposed solutions to comments on section 7
July 2001
July 2001
Proposed solutions to comments on section 7
Tim Moore, Microsoft
Tim Moore, Microsoft

2. Minor comments Doc 294 Rev 1 Minor comments and resolutions
July 2001
Minor comments
Doc 294 Rev 1
Minor comments and resolutions
Bad use of “shall”
Incorrect cut and paste
Not always saying only use ESN functionality if ESN capable
Define ID numbers
Better diagrams
Not clear encrypting only data frames
Description of usage of elements should be in section 5 not 7
NULL security to and move rest down
Motion for editor to accept the above changes
Tim Moore, Microsoft

3. Major comments Unspecified authentication
July 2001
Major comments
Unspecified authentication
Kerberos Optimization (ignore)
Which elements are in which messages
How Multicast Ciphers are negotiated
ESN without ULA
Mixed ESN and Legacy
Tim Moore, Microsoft

4. Unspecified authentication(1608)
July 2001
Unspecified authentication(1608)
Use of unspecified authentication to allow 802.1X to decide
WG discussed this before and there were deployments that it was useful for
Motion to reject comment
Tim Moore, Microsoft

5. Kerberos optimization (ignore)
July 2001
Kerberos optimization (ignore)
Information elements are optional, all authentication methods must run without the information elements.
The elements defined are optimized for Kerberos
Tim Moore, Microsoft

6. July 2001
Beacon(586,340,1343,1439,744,41,1521,1656,1390)
Motion passed last meeting
Client may optimize if supplied but if not can find out either via probe or associate/re-associate
ASE optional
UCSE optional
MCSE optional
Realm Name optional
Principal Name optional
Tim Moore, Microsoft

7. July 2001
Probe Request
Client asks for what it wants to optimize, a STA that is not ESN capable does not supply the elements in the response
802.11d Request Element containing
ASE, UCSE, MCSE, Realm Name or Principal Name element IDs
Tim Moore, Microsoft

8. July 2001
Probe Response
If ESN capable must supply whatever elements were asked for in Probe Req Request Element
ASE optional
UCSE optional
MCSE optional
Realm Name optional
Principle Name optional
Tim Moore, Microsoft

9. Associate Request ASE optional UCSE optional MCSE optional
July 2001
Associate Request
ASE optional
Left to other STA if not supplied
UCSE optional
MCSE optional
Nonce optional
Authentication methods must be able to handle not having them, but optimize the auth protocol
Tim Moore, Microsoft

10. Associate Response ASE optional UCSE optional MCSE optional
July 2001
Associate Response
ASE optional
Must be supplied if defaults not correct and must be within request scope
UCSE optional
MCSE optional
Realm Name optional
Authentication methods must be able to handle not having them, but can be used to optimize the auth protocol
Principle Name optional
Nonce optional
Tim Moore, Microsoft

11. Re-associate Request ASE optional UCSE optional MCSE optional
July 2001
Re-associate Request
ASE optional
Left to other STA if not supplied
UCSE optional
MCSE optional
Tim Moore, Microsoft

12. Re-associate Response
July 2001
Re-associate Response
ASE optional
Must be supplied if not defaults not correct and must be within request scope
UCSE optional
MCSE optional
Realm Name optional
Authentication methods must be able to handle not having them, but optimize the auth protocol
Principle Name optional
Tim Moore, Microsoft

13. July 2001
UCSE/MCSE(1159,746,1401,1742,1274,351,587,588)
Each STA/STA pair can negotiate a different UCS
The AP decides the MCS and forces all STAs to it (may be based on the first STA)
If MCSE is not specified in response defaults to AES not to UCSE
Motion to accept update document as above
Tim Moore, Microsoft

14. ESN without ULA(1463) Should AES without ULA is allowed in ESN?
July 2001
ESN without ULA(1463)
Should AES without ULA is allowed in ESN?
E.g. For IBSS
Motion to disallow AES without ULA and require to support ULA within IBSS
Tim Moore, Microsoft

15. Mixed ESN and Legacy(1744) Mixed BSS of ESN and Legacy
July 2001
Mixed ESN and Legacy(1744)
Mixed BSS of ESN and Legacy
We do not mandate all ESN
Motion to make recommended not mandatory
Tim Moore, Microsoft

16. Improved definition on usage of “privacy” bit (1833)
July 2001
Improved definition on usage of “privacy” bit (1833)
Usage of the Privacy Subfield in the Capability Information element is not specified for a STA operating in an ESS.
This has led to different interpretation which came apparent during early WECA discussions and was “fixed” in WiFi testing agreements
This could better be fixed in context of ESN.
Motion to ask for proposals on text for usage definition, consistent with ESN and with adopted WiFi behaviour.
Tim Moore, Microsoft