Hi Joe, On Sun, October 23, 2011 9:20 pm, Joe Salowey wrote: > > On Oct 19, 2011, at 3:52 PM, Dan Harkins wrote: > >> >> Hi Sam, >> >> On Wed, October 19, 2011 12:59 pm, Sam Hartman wrote: >>> Hi. I've added PANA (pre-authentication). >>> >>> I wonder about the whole lower layer table. >>> Why is it important to distinguish PANA with pre-auth from pana without >>> pre-auth? >>> >>> Why is it important to distinguish 802.11 wpa, wpa2 and wpa2 with >>> pre-auth? >>> >>> I'd appreciate it if someone who cared about network access told me >>> what >>> to do here:-) >> >> You can collapse wpa, wpa2 and wpa2 with preauth. wpa and wpa2 are both >> actually trademarked terms of the Wi-Fi Alliance so they should probably >> not be in an IANA registry anyway. Regardless, though, they all do the >> same thing by conveying the same type of information in the same way. >> > > [Joe] I agree with removing WPA references. This really about the l2 > ciphering, not EAP. It may be useful to have this in an attribute, but I > don't think it belongs in this one.
The AP will be putting that attribute (possibly a list of them if it supports more than 1 cipher) in its beacons and probe responses and the client will be putting that attribute (the one it selects from the list) in its associate request. These attributes are already defined by 802.11's number authority, ANA, so it might be a good idea to just use the ANA-defined attribute in the 802.11 channel binding data. > I'm lean towards including the pre-auth case since I believe it is > different enough from the non-pre-auth case. It seems that different > parties may be involved in the conversation. Yes, you're right. Pre-auth and non-pre-auth use different ether-types to transmit their EAPoL-encapsulated EAP messages so the "eap lower layer" really is different. It's probably a good idea to retain this difference. regards, Dan. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
