May 2001 doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/294
IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs
Title
Date: May 15, 2001
Author: Leo Monteban
Agere Systems
Zadelstede 1-10, 3431 JZ Nieuwegein, Netherlands
Phone: +31 3060 97526
Fax: +31 3060 97556
e-Mail:
Abstract
First analysis of letter ballot comments on clause 7 of document “IEEE Std 802.11eS/D1, March 2001”.
Notes give indication on level of the comment.
Column “Rec#Start” gives reference to the record number of the starting point of the ballot; after this point more comments have been added, so these numbers have no reference to the data base anymore.
Column “Comment#” is the fixed number assigned to the comment; this is preserved in the database.
Column “notes” gives the brief reviewers notes and classify the comments.
Column “major” gives a reference to the major discussion items remaining.
Doc IEEE 802.11-01/300 gives more details on the major discussion items and on the minor items that are more than typographical in nature.
233 / 42 / Jesse handle
234 / 586 / Discussion point on Beacon usage of ESN elements / 1
235 / 340 / Same as #586 / 1
236 / 1158 / Reject
237 / 1343 / Same as #340 / 1
238 / 1439 / Same as #340 / 1
239 / 744 / Same as #340 / 1
240 / 41 / Same as #340 / 1
241 / 1521 / Same as #340 / 1
1656 / Same as #340 / 1 3
242 / 1390 / Same as #340 / 1
243 / 341 / Editorial
244 / 745 / Editorial
245 / 1522 / Editorial
246 / 1392 / 1st line is correct. So, making the rest clearer is an editorial comment. Jesse to fix.
247 / 1203 / Editorial
248 / 1159 / Needs discussion, Tim will write an initial suggestion / 2 3
249 / 1391 / Editorial
250 / 342 / Accept suggested remedy
251 / 344 / Accept suggested remedy
252 / 1204 / Taken care of by #342 & #344
253 / 45 / Editorial
254 / 343 / Accept suggested remedy
255 / 746 / Agree about nonce. MCSE comment should be included in discussion of record 248/#1159 / 2 3
256 / 1393 / Accept suggested remedy
257 / 1401 / Same as mentioned in 255/#746 / 2
1738 / editorial, accept
1739 / accept, clarify what "selector" is
258 / 43 / Editorial
259 / 592 / Editorial
260 / 1205 / Accept suggested remedy
261 / 747 / Same as 260/#1205
262 / 345 / Same as 260/#1205
263 / 44 / Same as 260/#1205
1741 / Same as 260/#1205
264 / 346 / Same as 260/#1205
265 / 1394 / Same as 260/#1205
266 / 1237 / Accept suggested remedy, need to coordinate with TGe & TGf
267 / 348 / Same as 266/#1237
268 / 748 / Same as 248 / 1159 / 3
269 / 1273 / Same as 248 / 1159 / 3
270 / 347 / Editorial, accept
271 / 1229 / Editor to work with other groups to assign Element Id Nr
272 / 46 / edit
273 / 1524 / edit
274 / 1463 / Open up for discussion / 4
275 / 1523 / edit
1608 / reject; discussion point
276 / 1395 / accept, editor to modify
277 / 1396 / accept, editor to modify
1742 / disciussion on use of 802.11D Request element for this / 2 3
278 / 1161 / editor to clarify meaning of "ESN aserted"
279 / 1230 / same as 271
280 / 349 / edit
281 / 1162 / editor to improve sentence; in addition the text "within ESN" must be clarified and match the definition of ESN
282 / 350 / typo
283 / 1231 / same as 282/350
284 / 749 / editorial; propose to accept suggested change
1554 / accept; minor discussion point
285 / 1525 / editorial
1693 / same as 1554
1671 / same as 1554
286 / 48 / grammar
1743 / same as 1742
287 / 1397 / typo
288 / 1398 / accept
289 / 1399 / accept
290 / 750 / accept
291 / 1274 / part of discussion on separate coverage of MCSE negotiation (isolated from UCSE) / 2
292 / 351 / accept same as 290/750 / 2 3
293 / 1233 / same as 271/1229
294 / 352 / typo
295 / 587 / MCSE comment should be included in discussion of record 248/#1159 / 2 3
1744 / discussion / 5
296 / 588 / Same as 255 / 2 3
297 / 353 / editorial
298 / 1234 / same as 271/1229
1745 / editor to define "entropy pool"
299 / 49 / editor to add clarifying text
300 / 1207 / to be covered in larger exercise to show the complete negotiation cycle including which elements are included in which frame / 3
301 / 358 / same as 300/1207 / 3
302 / 355 / editorial
303 / 354 / editorial
1599 / typo
304 / 1235 / same as 271/1229
305 / 360 / typo
306 / 359 / to be covered in larger exercise to show the complete negotiation cycle including which elements are included in which frame / 3
307 / 1208 / to be covered in larger exercise to show the complete negotiation cycle including which elements are included in which frame / 3
308 / 357 / editorial
309 / 1236 / same as 271/1229
310 / 356 / editorial
311 / 1362 / typo
312 / 50 / typo
313 / 47 / accept (it's from Bob ;-)
1556 / minor discussion point
1695 / same as 1556
1673 / same as 1556
Major discussion items
1 / Must there be ESN elements included in Beacon Frames
- Currently not covered; could be made optional to allow for passive scanning systems to work better
- Text in clause 8 suggests usage of ESN elements in Beacons
2 / Is there a need for separate negotiation on MCSE rather than tieing it to the UCSE; what is a proper default for MCSE
- Is it allowed to use more than one MC/BC cipher suite to cater for a mixed system with legacy WEP stations and ESN stations
- Consequence is that AP has to MC/BC every message twice, using both suites
3 / Need for a separate overview of the frames and the ESN elements they contain to serve as reference for the editor when putting together clause 7
- Tim Moore has prepared powerpoint file with suggested overview; needs to be discussed
4 / Significance of Shared Key Auth as part of ESN negotiation; how to do AES without using ULA (e.g. in an IBSS)?
5 / Is mixed BSS with ESN and legacy allowed?
Submission page 1 Leo Monteban, Agere Systems