It was <2014-07-22 wto 09:48>, when Tomasz Bursztyka wrote: > Hi Zhengguang, > >>>> So we want to make clear that ConnMan will not support incoming WPS PIN >>> in the first phase, or even in future by your design? >>> >>> I don't see why it would support it at any time. >>> >> OK, here we wonder how will ConnMan handle an incoming WPS PIN request? > > That's not how WPS works: device A, when connecting to a WPS enabled > device B, has to follow the WPS support exposed by B. If not, it will > just fail. A knows about which WPS method B supports, when it scans. > So in this case, ConnMan will only expose WPS PBC, thus any other > device that wants to connect to it will have to follow WPS PBC.
For the sake of accuracy let me refer to some sources[1][2] which clearly state that PIN method is mandatory and must be implemented. Besides there is (going to be?) yet another method: NFC tap-to-connect[3]. [1] http://www.wi-fi.org/knowledge-center/articles/wi-fi-protected-setup%E2%84%A2-0 (needs credentials) [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi_Protected_Setup [3] https://www.wi-fi.org/news-events/newsroom/wi-fi-certified-wi-fi-protected-setup-adds-nfc-tap-to-connect-for-simple-set -- Łukasz Stelmach Samsung R&D Institute Poland Samsung Electronics
pgp_vjtOSY69x.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
