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 =-
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima