wdiff rfc8110.original rfc8110.txt

Network Working Group
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Harkins, Ed.
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 8110 HP Enterprise
Intended status:
Category: Informational W. Kumari, Ed.
Expires: August 5, 2017
ISSN: 2070-1721 Google
February 1,
March 2017

Opportunistic Wireless Encryption
draft-harkins-owe-07

Abstract

This memo specifies an extension to IEEE Std 802.11 to provide for
opportunistic (unauthenticated) encryption to the wireless media.

[ Ed note: Text inside square brackets ([]) is additional background
information, answers to frequently asked questions, general musings,
etc. They will be removed before publication. This document is
being collaborated on in Github at: https://github.com/wkumari/draft-
harkins-owe. The authors (gratefully) accept pull requests. ]

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft document is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a maximum candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.

Information about the current status of six months this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on August 5, 2017.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8110.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2. Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3. Why IETF? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. 802.11 Network Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Opportunistic Wireless Encryption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4
4.1. Cryptography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. OWE Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5
4.3. OWE Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.4. OWE Post-Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7
4.5. OWE PMK Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9
6. Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Changes / Author Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 11

1. Introduction

This memo describes Opportunistic Wireless Encryption (OWE) -- a mode
of opportunistic security [RFC7435] for IEEE Std 802.11 -- OWE -- that provides
encryption of the wireless medium but no authentication.

1.1. Requirements Language

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

1.2. Notation

This memo uses the following notation:

y = F(X) an
An element-to-scalar mapping function. For an elliptic curve
group, it takes a point on the curve and returns the
x-coordinate; for a finite field element element, it is the identity
function, just returning the element itself.

Z = DH(x,Y)
for
For an elliptic curve curve, DH(x,Y) is the multiplication of point Y
by the scalar value x x, creating a point on the curve Z; for
finite field cryptography cryptography, DH(x,Y) is expontiation an exponentiation of
element Y to the power of x (implied modulo a field defining
prime, p) resulting in an element Z.

a = len(b)
indicates
Indicates the length in bits of the string b.

1.3. Why IETF?

[ RFC Editor: Please remove this entire section before publication.

The protocol described here is

2. Background

Internet access has become an extension to the IEEE 802.11
standard expected service at many locations --
for example, coffee shops, airports, and the question, naturally, arises: why do hotels. In many cases, this in the
IETF?

As the name implies, OWE provides opportunistic encryption, or
encryption of traffic without authentication of endpoints. OWE was
presented to the IEEE 802.11 Working Group for consideration but an
"all or nothing" approach to cryptographic protection has been
adopted by that body, and OWE is a stop in between "all" and
"nothing".

Through documents such as [RFC7435] and [RFC5386] the IETF has been
at the forefront of expanding the use of encryption in the Internet,
even when authentication is not possible or practical. The IETF is a
natural home for OWE.

This topic has been discussed within the IEEE IETF Coordination group
(notes from meeting: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ieee-ietf-
coord/current/msg00828.html), and within the IEEE. The IEEE has
allocated codepoints for this technique, see:
http://www.ieee802.org/11/email/stds-802-11-editors/msg00209.html ]

2. Background

Internet access has become an expected service at many locations -
for example, coffee shops, airports and hotels. In many cases, this
is offered over "Open" (unencrypted) wireless networks, because
distributing a passphrase (or using other
is offered over "Open" (unencrypted) wireless networks, because
distributing a passphrase (or using other authentication solutions)
is not convenient or realistic. Ideally, users would always use a
VPN when using an untrusted network, but often they don't. This
leaves their traffic vulnerable to sniffing attacks, for example example,
from someone in the adjacent hotel room running Wireshark, pervasive
monitors, etc.

In addition, many businesses (for example, coffee shops and bars)
offer free Wi-Fi as an inducement to customers to enter and remain in
the premises. Many customers will use the availability of free Wi-Fi
as a deciding factor in which business to patronize. Since these
businesses are not Internet service providers, they are often
unwilling and/or unqualified to perform complex configuration on
their network. In addition, customers are generally unwilling to do
complicated provisioning on their devices just to obtain free Wi-Fi.
This leads to a popular deployment technique -- a network protected
using a shared and public PSK Pre-Shared Key (PSK) that is printed on a
sandwich board at the entrance, on a chalkboard on the wall, or on a
menu. The PSK is used in a cryptographic handshake handshake, defined in [IEEE802.11]
[IEEE802.11], called the "4-way handshake" to prove knowledge of the
PSK and derive traffic encryption keys for bulk wireless data.

The belief is that this protects the wireless medium from passive
sniffing and simple attacks. That belief is erroneous. Since the
PSK is known by everyone, it is possible for a passive attacker to
observe the 4-way Handshake handshake and compute the traffic encryption keys
used by a client and access point. point (AP). If the attacker is too late
to observe this exchange, he can issue a forged "de-authenticate" "deauthenticate"
frame that will cause the client and/or AP to reset the 802.11 state
machine and cause them to go through the 4-way Handshake again handshake again,
thereby allowing the passive attacker to determine the traffic keys.

With OWE, the client and AP, AP perform a Diffie-Hellman key exchange
during the access procedure and use the resulting pairwise secret
with the 4-way Handshake, handshake instead of using a shared and public PSK in
the 4-way Handshake. handshake.

OWE requires no special configuration or user interaction but
provides a higher level of security than a common, shared, and public
PSK. OWE not only provides more security to the end user, it is also
easier to use both for the provider and the end user -- because there
are no public keys to maintain, share, or manage.

3. 802.11 Network Access

Wi-Fi Access Points (AP) access points (APs) advertise their presence through frames
called "beacons". These frames inform clients within earshot of the
SSID (Service Set Identifier) the AP is advertising, the AP's MAC Media
Access Control (MAC) address (known as its "BSSID" (Basic Service Set
Identifier)), security policy governing access, which the symmetric ciphers
it uses for unicast and broadcast frames, QoS information, as well as
support for other optional features of [IEEE802.11]. Wi-Fi clients
can actively discover APs by issuing "probe requests" requests", which are
queries for APs that respond with "probe responses". A probe
response carries essentially the same information as a beacon.

After an AP is discovered by a client, actively through probing or
passively through beacons, the client initiates a two-step method to
gain network access. The first step is "802.11 authentication". For
most methods of access, this is an empty exchange known as "Open
Authentication-- basically
Authentication" -- basically, the client says, "authenticate me", and
the AP responds responds, "ok, you're authenticated". After 802.11
authentication is 802.11 association, in which the client requests
network access from an AP-- the AP (the SSID, a selection of the type of
subsequent authentication to be made, any pairwise and group ciphers,
etc--
etc.) using an 802.11 association request. The AP acknowledges the
request with an 802.11 association response.

If the network is Open-- no authentication, Open (no authentication and no encryption-- encryption), the
client has network access immediately after completion of 802.11
association. If the network enforces PSK authentication, the 4-way
Handshake
handshake is initiated by the AP using the PSK to authenticate the
client and derive traffic encryption keys.

To add an opportunistic encryption mode of access to [IEEE802.11], it
is necessary to perform a Diffie-Hellman key exchange during 802.11
authentication and use the resulting pairwise secret with the 4-way
Handshake.
handshake.

4. Opportunistic Wireless Encryption

4.1. Cryptography

Performing a Diffie-Hellman key exchange requires agreement on a
domain parameter set in which to perform the exchange. OWE uses a
registry (see [IKE-IANA]) to map an integer into a complete domain
parameter set. OWE supports both elliptic curve cryptography Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC)
and finite field cryptography Finite Field Cryptography (FFC).

OWE uses a hash algorithm for generation of a secret and a secret
identifier. The particular hash algorithm depends on the group
chosen for the Diffie-Hellman. For ECC, the hash algorithm depends
on the size of the prime defining the curve, curve p:

o SHA-256: when len(p) <= 256

o SHA-384: when 256 < len(p) <= 384

o SHA-512: when 384 < len(p)

For FFC, the hash algorithm depends on the prime, p, defining the
finite field:

o SHA-256: when len(p) <= 2048

o SHA-384: when 2048 < len(p) <= 3072

o SHA-512: when 3072 < len(p)

4.2. OWE Discovery

An access point advertises support for OWE using an Authentication
and Key Management (AKM) suite selector for OWE. This AKM is
illustrated in Table 1 and is added to the RSN element Robust Security Network
(RSN) element, defined in [IEEE802.11], in all Beacons beacons and Probe Response probe
response frames that the AP issues.

OWE AKM

+----------+--------+-------------------+-------------+-------------+
| OUI | Suite | Authentication | Key | Key |
| | Type | Type | Management | derivation |
| | | | Type | type |
+----------+--------+-------------------+-------------+-------------+
| 00-0F-AC | 18 | Opportunistic | This | [RFC5869] |
| | | Wireless | document | |
| | | Encryption | | |
+----------+--------+-------------------+-------------+-------------+

Table 1: OWE AKM
Once a client discovers an OWE-compliant AP, it performs "Open
System" 802.11 authentication as defined in [IEEE802.11], and it then
proceeds to 802.11 association.

4.3. OWE Association

Information is added to 802.11 association requests and responses by
using TLVs that [IEEE802.11] calls "elements". Each element has an
"Element ID" (including any Element ID extension), a length, and a
value field that is element-specific. element specific. These elements are appended to
each other to construct 802.11 associate association requests and responses.

OWE adds the Diffie-Hellman Parameter element (see Figure 1) to
802.11 association requests and responses. The client adds her
public key in the 802.11 associate request association request, and the AP adds his
public key in the 802.11 associate association response.

The Diffie-Hellman Parameter Element

Figure 1

where 1: The Diffie-Hellman Parameter Element

where:

o group is an unsigned two-octet integer defined in [IKE-IANA], in
little-endian format, that identifies a domain parameter set;

o public key is an octet string representing the Diffie-Hellman
public key; and,

o Element ID, Length, and Element ID Extension are all single octet single-octet
integers.

The encoding of the public key depends on its type. FFC elements
SHALL be encoded per the integer-to-Octet-String integer-to-octet-string conversion technique
of [RFC6090]. For ECC elements, the encoding depends on the
definition of the curve, either that in [RFC6090] or [RFC7748]. If
the public key is from a curve defined in [RFC6090], compact
representation SHALL be used.

A client wishing to do OWE MUST indicate the OWE AKM in the RSN
element portion of the 802.11 association request, request and MUST include a
Diffie-Hellman Parameter element to its 802.11 association request.
An AP agreeing to do OWE MUST include the OWE AKM in the RSN element
portion of the 802.11 association response. If "PMK caching" (see
Section 4.5) is not performed, it MUST also include a Diffie-Hellman
Parameter element. If "PMK caching" is not being performed, a client
MUST discard any 802.11 association response that indicates the OWE
AKM in the RSN element but does not have not a Diffie-Hellman
Parameter element.

For interoperability purposes, a compliant implementation MUST
support group nineteen (19), a 256-bit elliptic curve group. If the
AP does not support the group indicated in the received 802.11
association request request, it MUST respond with an 802.11 association
response with a status code of seventy-seven (77) indicating an
unsupported finite cyclic group. A client that receives an 802.11
association response with a status code of seventy-seven SHOULD retry
OWE with a different supported group and, due to the unsecured nature
of 802.11 association, MAY request association again using the group
which
that resulted in failure. This failure SHOULD be logged logged, and if the
client abandons association due to the failure to agree on any group,
notification of this fact SHOULD be provided to the user.

Received Diffie-Hellman Parameter Elements elements are checked for validity
upon receipt. For ECC, a validity check depends on the curve
definition, either that in [RFC6090] or [RFC7748]. For FFC, elements
are checked that they are between one (1) and one (1) less than the
prime, p, exclusive (i.e. (i.e., 1 < element < p-1). Invalid received
Diffie-Hellman keys MUST result in unsuccessful association, a
failure of OWE, and resetting a reset of the 802.11 state machine. Due to the
unsecured nature of 802.11 association association, a client SHOULD retry OWE a
number of times (which this (this memo does not specify). specify the number of times).
This failure should be logged logged, and if the client abandons association
due to the (repeated) receipt of invalid elements, notification of
this fact should be provided to the user.

4.4. OWE Post-Association

Once the client and AP have finished 802.11 association, they then
complete the Diffie-Hellman key exchange and create a "pairwise
master key" (PMK), Pairwise Master
Key (PMK) and its associated identifier, PMKID. PMKID [IEEE802.11]. Given a
private key x, x and the peer's (AP's if client, client's if AP) public
key Y Y, the following are generated:

z = F(DH(x, Y))

prk = HKDF-extract(C | A | group, z)

PMK = HKDF-expand(prk, "OWE Key Generation", n)

Where
where HKDF-expand() and HKDF-extract() are defined in [RFC5869]; "C |
A | group" is a concatentation concatenation of the client's Diffie-Hellman public
key, the AP's Diffie-Hellman public key (from the 802.11 Associate
Request association
request and Response, response, respectively), and the two-octet group from the
Diffie-Hellman Parameter element (in little-endian format) and is
passed as the salt to HKDF the HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand Key
Derivation Function (HKDF) using the hash algorithm defined in
section
Section 4.1; and, and n is the bit-length bit length of the digest produced by that
hash algorithm. z and prk SHOULD be irretrievably deleted once the
PMK has been generated.

The PMKID is generated by hashing the two Diffie-Hellman public keys
(the data, as sent and received, from the "public key" portion of the
Diffie-Hellman Parameter element in the 802.11 Association association request
and response) and returning the left-most leftmost 128 bits:

PMKID = Truncate-128(Hash(C | A))

where C is the client's Diffie-Hellman public key from the 802.11
Association request and
association request, A is the AP's Diffie-Hellman public key from the
802.11 Association association response, and Hash is the hash algorithm defined
in section Section 4.1.

Upon completion

+---------+--------------+----------+-------+------------+----------+
| Hash | Integrity | KCK_bits | Size | Key-wrap | KEK_bits |
| | Algorithm | | of 802.11 association, the AP initiates the 4-way
Handshake to the | Algorithm | |
| | | | MIC | | |
+---------+--------------+----------+-------+------------+----------+
| SHA-256 | HMAC-SHA-256 | 128 | 16 | NIST AES | 128 |
| | | | | Key-wrap | |
| SHA-384 | HMAC-SHA-384 | 192 | 24 | NIST AES | 256 |
| | | | | Key-wrap | |
| SHA-512 | HMAC-SHA-521 | 256 | 32 | NIST AES | 256 |
| | | | | Key-wrap | |
+---------+--------------+----------+-------+------------+----------+

Table 2: Integrity and Key Wrap Algorithms

Upon completion of 802.11 association, the AP initiates the 4-way
handshake to the client using the PMK generated above. The 4-way
handshake generates a Key-Encrypting Key (KEK), a Key-Confirmation
Key (KCK), and a Message Integrity Code (MIC) to use for protection
of the frames that define the 4-way handshake. The algorithms and
key lengths used in the 4-way handshake depend on the hash algorithm
selected in Section 4.1 and are listed in Table 2.

The result of the 4-way Handshake handshake is encryption keys to protect bulk
unicast data and broadcast data. If the 4-way Handshake fails handshake fails, this
information SHOULD be presented to the user.

4.5. OWE PMK Caching

[IEEE802.11] defines "PMK caching" where a client and access point
can cache a PMK for a certain period of time and reuse it with the
4-way Handshake handshake after subsequent associations to bypass potentially
expensive authentication. A client indicates its desire to do "PMK
caching" by including the identifying PMKID in its 802.11 association
request. If an AP has cached the PMK identified by that PMKID, it
includes the PMKID in its 802.11 association response, otherwise response; otherwise, it
ignores the PMKID and proceeds with normal 802.11 association. OWE
supports the notion of "PMK caching".

Since "PMK caching" is indicated in the same frame as the Diffie-
Hellman Parameter element is passed, a client wishing to do "PMK
caching" MUST include both in her 802.11 association request. If the
AP has the PMK identified by the PMKID and wishes to perform "PMK
caching", he will include the PMKID in his 802.11 association
response but does not include a Diffie-Hellman parameter Parameter element. If
the AP does not have the PMK identified by the PMKID, it ignores the
PMKID and proceeds with normal OWE 802.11 association by including a
Diffie-Hellman Parameter element.

When attempting "PMK caching" caching", a client SHALL ignore any Diffie-
Hellman Parameter element in an 802.11 association response that whose
PMKID matches that of the client-issued 802.11 association request.
If the 802.11 association response does not include a PMKID, or if
the PMKID does not match that of the client-issued 802.11 association
request, the client SHALL proceed with normal OWE association.

The client SHALL ignore a PMKID in any 802.11 association response
frame for which it did not include a PMKID in the corresponding
802.11 association request frame.

5. IANA Considerations

This memo includes no request to IANA. document does not require any IANA actions.

6. Implementation Considerations

OWE is a replacement for 802.11 "Open" authentication. Therefore,
when OWE-compliant access points are discovered, the presentation of
the available SSID to users should not include special security
symbols such as a "lock icon". To a user, an OWE SSID is the same as
"Open",
"Open"; it simply provides more security behind the scenes.

When OWE is initially deployed as a replacement for an existing
network that uses "Open" authentication or a shared and public PSK PSK,
it will be necessary to create an additional Basic Service Set
identifier
Identifier (BSSID) or a new Extended Service Set (ESS) with a
separate Service Set Identifier (SSID) for OWE so two distinct 802.11
networks can exist on the same Access Point access point (see [IEEE802.11]). This
arrangement should remain until the majority of users have switched
over to OWE.

7. Security Considerations

Opportunistic encryption does not provide authentication. The client
will have no authenticated identity for the Access Point, access point, and vice
versa. They will share pairwise traffic encryption keys and have a
cryptographic assurance that a frame claimed to be from the peer is
actually from the peer and was not modified in flight.

OWE only secures data sent over the wirless wireless medium and does not
provide security for end-to-end traffic. Users should still use
application-level security for to achieve security end-to-end.

OWE is susceptible to an active attack in which an adversary
impersonates an Access Point, access point and induces a client to connect to it
via OWE while it makes a connection to the legitimate Access Point. access point.
In this particular attack, the adversary is able to inspect, modify,
and forge any data between the client and legitimate Access Point. access point.

OWE is not a replacement for any authentication protocol specified in
[IEEE802.11] and is not intended to be used when an alternative that
provides real authentication is available.

8. References

8.1. Normative References

[IEEE802.11]
IEEE Computer Society, "Telecommunications
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Information technology--
Telecommunications and information exchange between
systems Local and metropolitan area
networks--", networks--Specific
requirements - Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control
(MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications Specifications", IEEE Std
802.11-2016, 2016.
802.11, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2016.7786995.

[IKE-IANA]
IANA, "Internet Key Exchange (version 2) Parameters",
Transform "Transform Type 4: 4 - Diffie-Hellman Group Transform IDs,
2005, <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters/
ikev2-parameters.xhtml#ikev2-parameters-8>.
IDs", <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters/>.

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997. 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

[RFC5869] Krawczyk, H. and P. Eronen, "HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand
Key Derivation Function (HKDF)", RFC 5869,
DOI 10.17487/
RFC5869, 10.17487/RFC5869, May 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5869>.

[RFC6090] McGrew, D., Igoe, K., and M. Salter, "Fundamental Elliptic
Curve Cryptography Algorithms", RFC 6090,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6090, February 2011. 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6090>.

[RFC7748] Langley, A., Hamburg, M., and S. Turner, "Elliptic Curves
for Security", RFC 7748, DOI 10.17487/RFC7748, January
2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7748>.

8.2. Informative References

[RFC5386] Williams, N. and M. Richardson, "Better-Than-Nothing
Security: An Unauthenticated Mode of IPsec", RFC 5386, DOI
10.17487/RFC5386, November 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5386>.

[RFC7435] Dukhovni, V., "Opportunistic Security: Some Protection
Most of the Time", RFC 7435, DOI 10.17487/RFC7435,
December 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7435>.

Appendix A. Changes / Author Notes.

[ RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication ]

-00:

Initial version.

-00 to -01:

Editorial, title change.

-01 to -02:

Stressed the use of this as an alternative to "Open", not PSK.
The PSK case is more interesting to discuss, but Open is more
widely applicable.

-02 to -03:

Added "Why IETF?"

-03 to -04:

Closed the "False sense of security" TODO - it was already done
(above).

Filled in the ANA-1 and ANA-2 placeholders with the actual values.

Closed the "failure to agree on group" TODO.

-04 to -05:

Closed the "what to do if invalid elements are received" TODO.

Closed the "is [SEC1] a good and stable reference?" comment.

Closed the "what about curve25519?" comment.

Closed the "should the group be included in PMK derivation?
comment.

Closed the issue regarding validity checks for curve25519.

-05 to -06:

Changed 802.11 reference to -2016 since that just came out.

Added note in Security Considerations on end-to-end security (Lucy
Yong comment).

Added note about using a 2nd BSSID or SSID when transitioning to
OWE (Mahesh Jethanandani comment).

Added note about alerting the user to a failure of the 4-way
Handshake (Mahesh Jethanandani comment).

s/suite identifier/suite selector/ in 4.2 (Robert Stacey comment).

3rd column in Figure 1 should be "Element ID Extension" (Robert
Stacey comment).

Conformed to IEEE 802.11 style wrt capitalization in 4.2 (Robert
Stacey comment).

-06 to -07:

Removed mention of single octet fields being in little endian.

Removed parenthetical mention of SAE.

changed "pubic value" to "public key" for consistency and clarity.

Authors' Addresses

Dan Harkins (editor)
HP Enterprise
1322 Crossman avenue
Sunnyvale,
3333 Scott Boulevard
Santa Clara, California 94089 95054
United States of America

Phone: +1 415 555 1212
Email: dharkins@arubanetworks.com

Warren Kumari (editor)
Google
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, California 94043
United States of America

Phone: +1 408 555 1212
Email: warren@kumari.net