Proposed solutions to comments on section 7

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

2. 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 0.0.0.0 and move rest down • Motion for editor to accept the above changes Tim Moore, Microsoft

3. 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) • 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) • Information elements are optional, all authentication methods must run without the information elements. • The elements defined are optimized for Kerberos Tim Moore, Microsoft

6. 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. 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. 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 • Left to other STA if not supplied • UCSE optional • Left to other STA if not supplied • MCSE optional • Left to other STA if not supplied • 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 • Must be supplied if defaults not correct and must be within request scope • UCSE optional • Must be supplied if defaults not correct and must be within request scope • MCSE optional • Must be supplied if defaults not correct and must be within request scope • 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 • Authentication methods must be able to handle not having them, but can be used to optimize the auth protocol • Nonce optional • Authentication methods must be able to handle not having them, but can be used to optimize the auth protocol Tim Moore, Microsoft

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

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

13. 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? • 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 • We do not mandate all ESN • Motion to make recommended not mandatory Tim Moore, Microsoft

16. 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