Toerless Eckert <> 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

    > 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 <>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Anima mailing list

Reply via email to