On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:33:38AM +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
> On 18/11/2018 23:18, Jouni Malinen wrote:
> > +/*MAP Information Element (used in (Re)Association Request frames)
> > + */
> > +struct multi_ap_ie {
> > + /* Element ID: 221 (0xdd); Length: 7 */
> > + u8 oui[3]; /* OUI_WFA 50:6F:9A */
> > + u8 oui_type; /* 0x1B */
> > + u8 sub_elem_id; /* 0x06 */
> > + u8 sub_elem_len; /* 1 */
>
> I could be wrong, but I think the intention is that the Multi-AP IE would
> contain a TLV list, of which currently only type 0x06 is defined. If that is the
> case, I think it should be processed similar to e.g. mbo, as a sequence of
> subelements rather than a fixed structure.
Agreed. While this hardcoded design with a single subelement would work
for constructing a Multi-AP IE for the current use cases (well, with the
struct renamed to be more specific for that use case), it is not really
a good idea to use this for parsing the element. There is no guarantee
in the tech spec that the particular Multi-AP Extension subelement would
be the first subelement in the received Multi-AP IE.
--
Jouni Malinen PGP id EFC895FA
_______________________________________________
Hostap mailing list
Hostap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/hostap
