doc.: Submission January 22, 2014 Rene Struik (Struik Security Consultancy)Slide 1 TGai Motions Date: Authors: NameCompanyAddressPhone René StruikStruik Security Consultancy Toronto ON, CanadaUSA: +1 (415) Toronto: +1 (647) Skype: rstruik

doc.: Submission January 22, 2014 Comment #2983 Comment: FILS key establishment without a trusted third party clause does not clearly describe the protocol. Proposed resolution: This sub-clause is really hard to follow and does not describe each message and its contents clearly. Please re-work to describe the protocol clearly. Discussion: Comment discussed extensively with commenter, so as to get clarification of comment (since comment itself did not include actionable resolution text). Verbal notes taken as basis for clarifications thought from commenter, resulting in document 14/0180r0. Slide 2Rene Struik (Struik Security Consultancy)

doc.: Submission January 22, 2014 Motion #1 Incorporate suggested resolution of CID #2983, as documented in ai-suggested-resolution-security-comment-CID Result: Y/N/A Slide 3Rene Struik (Struik Security Consultancy)

doc.: Submission January 22, 2014 Comment #2222 Comment: The description of what is encrypted and decrypted is in conflict with section which indicates that the portion of the association frames after the FILS session element is subject to encrypt/decrypt. Proposed resolution: Resolve the conflict with section Discussion: Main steps: −Removed confusing section −Explicitly mentioned in that Container objects should be incorporated when constructing Association Response frame −Suggested to rename “Secure Container” to “Container” throughout draft, so as to remove confusion. Note: This comment was also addressed in 13/1193r1 (posted September 17, 2013) Slide 4Rene Struik (Struik Security Consultancy)

doc.: Submission January 22, 2014 Motion #2 Incorporate suggested resolution of CID #2222, as documented in ai-suggested-resolution-security-comment-cid Result: Y/N/A Slide 5Rene Struik (Struik Security Consultancy)