Toerless Eckert <t...@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> I would prefer for any work in this space to happen in
> followup document(s), not in BRSKI itself.
I agree completely.
I wasn't imagining putting it into the current document.
> I think anything done in ANIMA should purely be describing mechanisms
> to leverage unmodified existing 802.11 mechanisms and ideally we find
> some existing work that also built some form of layered standards
> on top of 802.11.
> The issue we IMHO need to overcome is that there
> are ways how this could also be done by extending 802.11 and we
> need to have an argument why that may be an option but it is
> nonwithstanding for us to do it NOT that way. We had for example
> also a long discussion in the beginning of ANIMA why not to use EAP
> in BRSKI.
I agree completely.
> Nancy mentioned other 802.11 options beside SSID, so maybe we should
> gate a decision to adopt any such work to the WG having sufficient
> understanding of what the existing options in 802.11 are that
> we could leverage without having to extend 802.11. Maybe we could
> draft Nancy or some other 802.11 expert to give a summary to the WG
> (802.11u eg.).
I'm willing to listen to ideas, but I'm afraid of going down the IEEE hole
here.
> Aka: selecting the best SSID in face of competing offers
> multiple or single AP is the type of work i think we should
> give some tthought to. Ideally something extensible
> where we can in the first spec get away with a most simple
> start but will have forward compatibility with later
> updates/extensions.
your suggestions are inline with what I was thinking.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
