On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 at 16:43, John Mattsson
wrote:
> It is always great with more privacy, but the IMSI Privacy Protection for
> Wi-Fi seems a bit weird to me. Do anybody know the background and reason
> behind the standard? 3GPP standardized a mechanism to encrypt IMSIs already
> in 2018. I hav
Hi Alan,
On 22.12.22 23:45, Alan DeKok wrote:
So I'd like to know what would be in TEAPv2, and what issues there would be if we just
documented TEAPv1 "as implemented".
I don't see TEAPv2 as much more than functioning TEAPv1. But if there
are people out there who have a functioning TEAPv
> On Dec 23, 2022, at 6:07 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> I don't see TEAPv2 as much more than functioning TEAPv1. But if there are
> people out there who have a functioning TEAPv1, and we have tested against
> other vendors, we will hear from ALL of them if we break something. That is-
> I don't wa
Alan DeKok wrote:
> We have "something" implemented today as TEAPv1. Whatever it is,
> it's shipped by multiple vendors on tens of millions of devices. Plus,
> there are multiple other vendors planning on shipping TEAP support in
> Q2 2023.
> We can rev TEAP, but we can
Based on the supportive and engaged feedback on the mailing list, the chairs
are declaring rfc7170bis adopted by the WG. It looks like we're already
getting into a discussion of the content of the draft, which is fine.
Alan, please submit a WG version of the document for approval. From there,
the
