Wg ballot closed: 22 October 2015

WG ballot closed: 22 October 2015

• WG ballot closed: 22 October 2015

• Ballot tally: 74 yes, 2 no, 4 abstain (97% approve)

• One NO voter has changed to YES in current recirculation.
• Remaining NO voter has identified only one comment as remaining unsatisfied (see next page)

Comment: As association request and response are not protected at all, what happens if the rogue PNC will asking joining member wrong DEVID, which is duplicate with someone already in the network. When the valid DEV then tries send authenticated frames to the real PNC using wrong DEVID, there will be nonce collisions. Is there something in the system that will prevent this? As the security message frames are not authenticated either, that means that attacker can do address translation for them too, i.e., change the address of the frame from the one that DEV thinks he has to the one that real PNC thinks he has, and other way around. Unless the security protocol run over those messages specifically authenticate the DEVID of the device, and not the full 48-bit address of the device, this phase will not detect this attack. After the security protocol, I think the device moves to use the encrypted frames, thus it might cause collision.

• Comment: As association request and response are not protected at all, what happens if the rogue PNC will asking joining member wrong DEVID, which is duplicate with someone already in the network. When the valid DEV then tries send authenticated frames to the real PNC using wrong DEVID, there will be nonce collisions. Is there something in the system that will prevent this? As the security message frames are not authenticated either, that means that attacker can do address translation for them too, i.e., change the address of the frame from the one that DEV thinks he has to the one that real PNC thinks he has, and other way around. Unless the security protocol run over those messages specifically authenticate the DEVID of the device, and not the full 48-bit address of the device, this phase will not detect this attack. After the security protocol, I think the device moves to use the encrypted frames, thus it might cause collision.

• Suggested resolution: blank

• Response Rejected: The Security Message command was introduced to allow 4-way handshake key agreement protocols (or 3-way for key agreements like ECMQV). The frames are authenticated by the handshake process and at this point, the DEV does not have a symmetric key and therefore, authentication is meaningless. The key agreement protocol will ensure the identities of the DEVs.

• As for a rogue PNC assigning an invalid DEVID, the attempt to authenticate with the true PNC would fail (it checks the DEVID).

• No change required.

Current recirculation ends 15 November 2015

• Current recirculation ends 15 November 2015

• BRC conference

• 18 November 2015

• Recirculation #2:

• 20 November 2015 to 5 December 2015

• BRC conference call

• 7 December 2015

• Recirculation #3 if needed

• 9 December 2015 to 24 December 2015

Move that the 802.15 WG, having reviewed the CSD statement 15-15-0332-00 associated with P802.15.4n, approve this CSD statement.

• Move that the 802.15 WG, having reviewed the CSD statement 15-15-0332-00 associated with P802.15.4n, approve this CSD statement.

• Moved:

• Second:

15.4 Revision 3 rolls up e, f, g, j, k, m, and p

• 15.4 Revision 3 rolls up e, f, g, j, k, m, and p

• In the active pipeline are n, q, r, and s

• In order to get the Revision done, we put a stake in the ground not to submit any further amendments to RevCom until the Revision was complete

• Currently 15.4n and 15.4q are complete (apart from updating the Revision references) and awaiting the completion of the Revision

• Although the reference updates are editorial the recommendation was made to do a recirculation anyway

• Target is to submit 15.4n and 15.4q to the RevCom meeting following the meeting where the Revision is approved (Target is this December).

Initial Sponsor Ballot (P802.15.4-REVc-D00)

• Initial Sponsor Ballot (P802.15.4-REVc-D00)

• Closed 8 May 2015

• Cumulative vote results (pool of 137 voters)

• 117 responses (85% response ratio)
• 104 yes, 6 no (94% approval ratio)
• 7 abstain (5% abstain ratio)

• 453 comments from 17 commenters

• 172 marked as MBS
• Comment resolution database worksheet:
• https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/15/15-15-0344-25

Sponsor Ballot Recirc 1: Closed 25th October 2015

• Sponsor Ballot Recirc 1: Closed 25th October 2015

• Vote results (pool of 137 voters)

• 120 responses (87% response ratio)
• 111 yes, 2 no (98% approval ratio) (No new NO voters, 1 repeat)
• 7 abstain (5% abstain ratio)

• 123 comments from 5 commenters

• 63 MBS Comments from the 1 repeat No Voter
• There were no new valid MBS comments
• https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/15/15-15-0876-01)
• Comment resolution database worksheet:
• https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/15/15-15-0344-25

Michael Bahr submitted 63 MBS comments, none valid

• Michael Bahr submitted 63 MBS comments, none valid
• See https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/15/15-15-0876-01)
• Comments related to inserting a mode called Low Latency Deterministic Network (LLDN) into the draft:
• Background for those who are curious-
• LLDN mode was in the 802.15.4e amendment
• Before the WG Letter Ballot on this draft, the maintenance committee determined that LLDN had numerous errors and was not operable as described in 802.15.4e
• The LLDN author and only champion, Michael Bahr, had stopped attending the 802.15 meetings and was not on any reflectors
• Given that and no other support within 802.15, the decision was made to remove it
• There were no comments made during the WG letter ballot concerning its removal.
• During Sponsor Ballot comment resolution, emails were sent to Michael Bahr on 3 June, 14 July (3), 16 July, 17 July, 18 August, and 19 August regarding this issue. He did agree that there were significant flaws
• A final email, on 29 Oct, advised Michael of the BRC’s decision to leave the draft as is.

There were 40 MBS comments received on the initial ballot

• There were 40 MBS comments received on the initial ballot

• On 9 November 2015, Dr. Gilb sent an email to B Heile and P Kinney stating: “The remaining comments I am dissatisfied with are: i-443, i-439, i-438, i-430. I accept the resolutions to all other comments.”

• Comment i-430 is about Time-Slot Relaying based Link Extension (TRLE) mode of range extension for Low Energy Critical Infrastructure Monitor (LECIM) devices. This comment was rejected

• Comments i-438, i-439, and i-443 concern aspects of the guaranteed time slot Deterministic and Synchronous Multi-channel Extension (DSME) mode. Disposition Status on these 3 comments is “Revised”

• Details in-- https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/15/15-15-0344-25

802.15 requests approval from the EC to submit the P802.15-REVc-D02 draft to RevCom.

• 802.15 requests approval from the EC to submit the P802.15-REVc-D02 draft to RevCom.

• WG vote (,0,0)

• Moved: Heile, Seconded: Gilb
• Note: There is no CSD associated with this project

Initial Ballot Open Date: 08-Feb-2015 Initial Ballot Close Date: 10-Mar-2015 64 eligible people in this ballot group. 54 votes received = 84% returned 3% abstention APPROVAL RATE 48 affirmative votes 4 negative votes with comments 52 votes = 92% affirmative Comments: 48, Must Be Satisfied Comments: 34

• Initial Ballot Open Date: 08-Feb-2015 Initial Ballot Close Date: 10-Mar-2015 64 eligible people in this ballot group. 54 votes received = 84% returned 3% abstention APPROVAL RATE 48 affirmative votes 4 negative votes with comments 52 votes = 92% affirmative Comments: 48, Must Be Satisfied Comments: 34

•    

Recirc 1 Ballot Open Date: 12-Jun-2015 Recirc 1 Ballot Close Date: 22-Jun-2015 64 eligible people in this ballot group. 54 votes received = 84% returned 5% abstention APPROVAL RATE 50 affirmative votes

• Recirc 1 Ballot Open Date: 12-Jun-2015 Recirc 1 Ballot Close Date: 22-Jun-2015 64 eligible people in this ballot group. 54 votes received = 84% returned 5% abstention APPROVAL RATE 50 affirmative votes

• 3 abstentions 1 negative votes with comments (from prior ballot) 51 votes = 98% affirmative Comments: 1, Must Be Satisfied Comments: 0

• (Comment was:  This draft meets all editorial requirements)

• There were no new NO voters or MBS comments

After approval of the 15.4 Revision at the December SASB meetings, update the references in the 15.4n draft to conform with the approved Revision

• After approval of the 15.4 Revision at the December SASB meetings, update the references in the 15.4n draft to conform with the approved Revision

• All the references are editorial

• Recirculate the updated 15.4n draft Dec 7-17, 2015

• Assuming conditions are met, submit for approval at the March 2016 RevCom meeting

Move that the 802.15 WG, having reviewed the 5C statement 15-12-0007-05 associated with P802.15.4n, approve this 5C statement.

• Move that the 802.15 WG, having reviewed the 5C statement 15-12-0007-05 associated with P802.15.4n, approve this 5C statement.

• TG vote: Unanimous Consent

• Moved: Ken Mori

• Second:

Move that the 802.15 WG seek conditional approval from the EC to submit the IEEE P802.15.4n-D5.0 draft or final version to RevCom

• Move that the 802.15 WG seek conditional approval from the EC to submit the IEEE P802.15.4n-D5.0 draft or final version to RevCom

• TG vote: unanimous consent

• Moved: Ken Mori

• Second:

802.15 requests conditional approval from the EC to submit the IEEE P802.15.4n-D5.0 draft or final version to RevCom

• 802.15 requests conditional approval from the EC to submit the IEEE P802.15.4n-D5.0 draft or final version to RevCom

• Moved: Heile

• Second: Gilb

Initial Ballot - closed on 25 July, 2015

• Initial Ballot - closed on 25 July, 2015

• Vote results (pool of 92 voters)
• 77 responses (83% response ratio)
• 66 yes, 6 no (91% approval ratio)
• 5 abstain (6% abstain ratio)

• 158 total comments received

• 79 “Must Be Satisfied” (28 accepted, 29 revised, 21 rejected, 1 withdrawn)

Recirculation Ballot 1 - closed on 17 Sept., 2015

• Recirculation Ballot 1 - closed on 17 Sept., 2015
• Vote results (pool of 92 voters)
• 81 responses (88% response ratio)
• 71 yes, 6 no (92% approval ratio)
• 4 abstain (4% abstain ratio)

• 77 total comments received

• 37 “Must Be Satisfied”

• (5 accepted, 15 revised, 17 rejected)

Recirculation Ballot 2 - closed on 11 Oct., 2015

• Recirculation Ballot 2 - closed on 11 Oct., 2015
• Vote results (pool of 92 voters)
• 82 responses (89% response ratio)
• 75 yes, 3 no (96% approval ratio)
• 4 abstain (4% abstain ratio)

• 11 total comments received

• 1 comment withdrawn, 10 comments remaining

• 0 “Must Be Satisfied”

• No new NO voters and no new MBS comments

• MEC (Oct 2015): “This draft meets all editorial requirements.”

89 total “Must Be Satisfied”comments received from the 3 remaining NO voters over the 3 ballots (includes repeat comments)

• 89 total “Must Be Satisfied”comments received from the 3 remaining NO voters over the 3 ballots (includes repeat comments)

• 62 were accepted or revised
• 27 were rejected (including repeats)
• Excluding repeats (same comment from the same voter), there are 18 unique rejected comments
• 11 are Editorial or 15.4REV referencing
• 7 are Technical

• All comments & resolutions have been recirculated at least once

• There were no new NO voters or new MBS comments on the last ballot

• The 27 unsatisfied comments and resolutions (including repeats) from the 3 remaining no-voters have been copied to doc (15-15-0890-00-004q-p802-15-4q-sb-remaining-no-voters-unsatisifed-comments.xlsx) for easy reference with filters

• The full Consolidated Comment Resolution Spreadsheet for all ballots can be found at:

• 15-15-0889-00-004q-p802-15-4q-sb-aggregated-comment-resolution.xlsx

3 outstanding NO Voters from prior ballots

• 3 outstanding NO Voters from prior ballots

• All 3 outstanding NO Voters did not respond to Recirc2 and 1 has not responded since Recirc1.

• On Recirc2, there were 11 comments received but none marked “must be satisfied”

• 1 Comment has since been withdrawn.

• Of the 10 remaining, 9 are editorial, 1 is technical which was rejected

• The 11 comments and resolutions from the 2nd recirc. SB can be found in (15-15-0793-01-004q-sb-recir-2-comment.xlsx).

After approval of the 15.4 Revision at the December SASB meetings, update the references in the 15.4q draft to conform with the approved Revision

• After approval of the 15.4 Revision at the December SASB meetings, update the references in the 15.4q draft to conform with the approved Revision

• All the references are all editorial

• Recirculate the updated 15.4q draft Dec 7-17, 2015

• Assuming conditions are met, submit for approval at the March 2016 RevCom meeting

Move that the 802.15 WG, having reviewed the 5C statement 15-12-0387-06 associated with P802.15.4q, approve this 5C statement

• Move that the 802.15 WG, having reviewed the 5C statement 15-12-0387-06 associated with P802.15.4q, approve this 5C statement
• Moved: Chiu Ngo
• Seconded:
• Yes: , No: , Abstain:

Move that the 802.15 WG seek conditional EC approval to submit the 802.15.4q draft D7.0 or final version, to RevCom.

• Move that the 802.15 WG seek conditional EC approval to submit the 802.15.4q draft D7.0 or final version, to RevCom.
• Moved: Chiu Ngo
• Seconded:
• Yes: , No: , Abstain:

802.15 Working Group requests conditional approval from the EC to submit the 802.15.4q draft D7.0 or final version, to RevCom.

• 802.15 Working Group requests conditional approval from the EC to submit the 802.15.4q draft D7.0 or final version, to RevCom.
• Moved: Heile
• Seconded: Chaplin
• Yes: , No: , Abstain: