Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 .11-OCB (non) use of beacons

[Jérôme Härri <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alex,

Well, again we need to check who 'validated' the conformance of an OCB implementation, if any? I mean, even if we capture a beacon, it can also be a wrong implementation of a standard...we need to stay on facts from the standard, not from available implementations...

btw, as this draft is aimed as a WG RFC, should we only refer to standards and not to implementations ?

Best Regards,

Jérôme

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexandre Petrescu [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday 02 February 2017 18:39
To: Jerome Haerri
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 .11-OCB (non) use of beacons

Jérôme,

I agree to avoid creating alternative facts.

Is there a packet capture showing Beacons on 802.11-OCB?  If not then that's it.

Alex

Le 02/02/2017 à 18:17, Jerome Haerri a écrit :
> Alex,
>
> Look, I also have to read standards to understand them and sometimes, 
> they are ambiguous...
> But here, we have people who actually _took part of the writting_, of 
> the 802.11p/OCB mode, and clearly and with absolutely no ambiguity 
> stated that beacons are not sent in OCB...we should listen to them I think..
>
> let's not create '_alternative facts_' here...a 'trumpization' of the 
> standard work process will get us nowhere..
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Jérôme
>
> Envoyé de mon iPhone
>
> Le 2 févr. 2017 à 17:58, Alexandre Petrescu 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> a 
> écrit :
>
>> Dear Jérôme,
>>
>> Le 02/02/2017 à 17:00, Jerome Haerri a écrit :
>>> Dear Alex,
>>>
>>> well, If I cross on red lights, we cannot then say that as I did, 
>>> then crossing on red lights is allowed..
>>
>> Except that here we are making the red lights too :-)
>>
>>> if OCB implementations are sending beacons, then it is an 
>>> implementation issue..it does not mean that beacons should be 
>>> transmitted by the standards..
>>
>> Or vice-versa: the stds may need to reflect what's happening in practice.
>>
>> In my lab there are such beacons.  In other lab too.  It is for this 
>> reason that I have the doubt.
>>
>> I can not put in an Internet Draft (I-D) text that simply comes from 
>> other standards.  I-D should contain text that is about running code.
>>
>> And, of course, I need to put in this I-D what the WG thinks is good.
>> This is why I am asking.
>>
>>> Would still suggest to keep the original version or cut-past the 
>>> exact statement from 802.11-2016 about allowed messages in OCB mode.
>>>
>>> But just asking frankly: why do you want to keep this statement 
>>> about beacons (allowing them to be sent) ? we spend too much time on 
>>> useless details and not on other key issues..
>>
>> Because I have no guarantee that if I put there "Beacons MUST NOT be 
>> sent" implementers will do so.
>>
>> I wonder whether there is a reason why Beacons are there in these OCB 
>> implementations that send them.  Or maybe it's just because they are 
>> forgotten there during migration from .11bgn driver to .11-OCB driver.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> Jérôme
>>>
>>> Envoyé de mon iPhone
>>>
>>>> Le 2 févr. 2017 à 16:20, Alexandre Petrescu 
>>>> <[e-mail] 
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>> a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> But some OCB implementations do send Beacons.
>>>>
>>>> In that sense, I propose to say the following.
>>>>
>>>>>> 4.  Aspects introduced by the OCB mode to 802.11
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the IEEE 802.11 OCB mode, all nodes in the wireless range can 
>>>>>> directly communicate with each other without authentication/ 
>>>>>> association procedures.  Briefly, the IEEE
>>>>>> 802.11 OCB mode has the following properties:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> o  Wildcard BSSID (i.e., all bits are set to 1) used by each node
>>>>
>>>> old:
>>>>>> o  No beacons transmitted
>>>>
>>>> new:
>>>>>> o  OCB implementations do not receive beacons and most OCB 
>>>>>> implementations do not transmit Beacons.
>>>>
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Le 01/02/2017 à 20:20, Dick Roy a écrit : To reiterate, in OCB 
>>>>> operation there are NO beacons and there are NO APs.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> RR
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> ------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> *From:*Jérôme Härri [mailto:[e-mail]] *Sent:*
>>>>> Wednesday, February 1, 2017 4:04 AM *To:* 'Alexandre Petrescu'; 
>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> *Subject:* Re: [ipwave]
>>>>> draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 .11-OCB does use beacons
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not agree and I would be happy to have the reference in the 
>>>>> IEEE 802.11-2016 stating otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In the 802.11 standard, it clearly state the following line:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When dot11OCBActivated is true in a STA:
>>>>>
>>>>> " The STA _may send management frames of subtype Action_ and, if 
>>>>> the STA maintains a TSF Timer, subtype Timing Advertisement "
>>>>>
>>>>> " The STA may send _control frames_, _except_ those of _subtype 
>>>>> PS-Poll, CF-End, and CF-End + CFAck_ "
>>>>>
>>>>> " The STA may send _data frames of subtype Data, Null, QoS Data, 
>>>>> and QoS Null_. "
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A beacon is a management frame, but not of a class Action, so it 
>>>>> _cannot be transmitted when dot11OCBActivated_ is true in a STA. 
>>>>> But I agree that it is ambiguous…nevertheless, I would then 
>>>>> replace in the draft the mention of what OCB can do or can’t do 
>>>>> (e.g. sending beacons) with the exact 802.11-2016 statements.
>>>>> This would avoid misunderstanding.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But even if it could be possible, this does not make much sense.
>>>>> A beacon is transmitted on a channel you need to connect to get 
>>>>> BSS information and also to get the right frequency. In case of 
>>>>> OCB (outside context of a BSS), it is not required. But the real 
>>>>> question is ‘why’ would we need beacon, assuming it could be 
>>>>> transmitted?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jérôme
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: its [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>>>>> On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday 01 February 2017 11:51 To: [e-mail] 
>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> Subject:
>>>>> [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 .11-OCB does use 
>>>>> beacons
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 .11-OCB does use beacons
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello IPWAVErs,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It was suggested in private that, contrary to what the draft says, 
>>>>> the .11-OCB does use beacons.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As such, the following line should disappear from the draft:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 4.  Aspects introduced by the OCB mode to 802.11
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> In the IEEE 802.11 OCB mode, all nodes in the wireless range can
>>>>>
>>>>>> directly communicate with each other without authentication/
>>>>>
>>>>>> association procedures.  Briefly, the IEEE 802.11 OCB mode has 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>> following properties:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> o  Wildcard BSSID (i.e., all bits are set to 1) used by each node
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> o  [strike through] No beacons transmitted
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yours,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Alex
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>