Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] +++ ECM (Early Close) +++ 802.22b ISO/IEC/JTC1 Response

Apurva-

I don't have a vote but I do have the privilege of commenting.
I DO NOT APPROVE of the the new offered wording:

  • However, the provision of  additional ciphers may enhance 802.22’s ability to address special use cases and will provide alternatives as the default cipher is compromised in the future.  The 802.22 WG will consider on their merits any proposals received for additional ciphers in the next revision of 802.22.

for the following reason.  The comment may be adequately addressed without discussing the particular merits (good or bad) of the referenced "cipher"
I suggest the following wording:

  • However, the provision of  additional ciphers may enhance 802.22’s ability to address special use cases or specific national or future market needs. and will provide alternatives as the default cipher is compromised in the future.  The 802.22 WG will consider on their merits any proposals received for additional ciphers in the next revision of 802.22.

In addition, I am not happy with the overall response as the response goes beyond the scope of the document being commented upon.  This is unnecessary for a complete response to the issue at hand and yields to the provocation by the commenter to widen the discussion beyond the document under review.  Therefore I think the response should be as I have edited below.

The China NB has requested that IEEE 802.1X-2010 related descriptions are removed from the text of IEEE 802.22b.

IEEE 802 declines to make this change because:

IEEE 802.22b does not contain any IEEE 802.1X-2010 related descriptions
There is no technical justification to remove any IEEE 802.1X-2010 related descriptions from any standard

While the base IEEE 802.22-2011 specification does reference various IEEE 802.1 specifications including IEEE 802.1X, IEEE 802.22b includes no such references.

IEEE 802 recognizes that the China NB has asserted this in past that man-in-the-middle (and other) attacks are possible against IEEE 802.1X based systems. However, the technical details of such an attack (or a demonstration of an attack) have not yet been supplied by the China NB. In the absence of technical substantiation of the claims, there is no justification to remove references to IEEE 802.1X-2010 from any standard


I hope the voting members of the SEC will support these changes.

Sincerely,

Geoff Thompson, Member Emeritus


On Jan 15, 2018, at 9:35 AMPST, Mody, Apurva (US) <apurva.mody@BAESYSTEMS.COM> wrote:

Dear All, 
 
During the IEEE 802 November 2017 Plenary meeting, we had tabled this motion to send the IEEE 802.22b response to the ISO/IEC/JTC1 due to lack of appropriate words for the response.
 
The EC did not like the words as were discussed and suggested in the ISO/JTC1 Standing committee.
 
After discussions with Andrew Myles, we have agreed to a slight change in the response to the comment made by the China NB.
 
Note – The 802.22b-2015 Draft has been approved to be an ISO Standard. So this response is being sent to them as a courtesy.
 
I am attaching the original EC motions package, and the Draft Response document with marked up text that highlights what changed.
 
Paul approves starting an EC e-mail ballot and Steve has re-agreed to second the motion.  
 
Motion:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EC Approves the IEEE Std. 802.22b-2015 Comment Resolutions Responses for the FDIS Ballots as contained in Document:
   
Move: Apurva Mody
Second: Steve Shellhammer
For: 
Against: 
Abstain: 
 
Start of ballot: Tuesday 16th January 2018
Close of ballot: Thursday 125th January, 11:59PM AOE

Early close: As required in subclause 4.1.2 'Voting rules' of the IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee (LMSC) Operations Manual, this is notice that, to ensure the release is provided in a timely manner, this ballot may close early once sufficient responses are received to clearly decide a matter. Sufficient responses to clearly decide this matter will be based on the required majority for a motion under subclause 7.1.1 'Actions requiring approval by a majority vote' item (h), 'Other motions brought to the floor by members (when deemed in order by the Sponsor Chair)' of the IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee (LMSC) Policies and Procedures.
 
 
Dr. Apurva N. Mody
Chair, IEEE 802.22 Working Group
Chairman, WhiteSpace Alliance
Acting Chair, National Spectrum Consortium

T: +1 603 885 2621  |  M: +1 404 819 0314  |  E: apurva.mody@baesystems.com, apurva.mody@ieee.org
www.baesystems.com

Connect with BAE Systems: <image001.png> <image002.jpg> <image003.jpg> <image004.png> <image005.png>

 
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv. <IEEE_802d22_to_ISOIEC_JTC1_SC6_draft.doc><22-17-0091-02-0000-EC-Closing-Motions-Package.pptx>

---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.