On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 01:30:50PM +0300, bilalhp@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > Application Extension attribute is defined in WPS Spec v2.06 page 105. > This patch makes hostapd add this application extension data to WPS IE > if configured. The implementation is very similar to vendor extension. > > Added a new optional entry called "wps_application_ext[]" to hostapd config > file to configure this. That looks overly complex. Why would there be need to assign specific application extension indexes? Couldn't the next index value be assigned automatically so that first wps_application_ext=<hex> entry would get index 0 and the next such line would get index 1? Or alternatively, support only one Application Extension attribute if there is no existing use case that needs more of those.. It is not likely WSC should really be used for anything new and instead, DPP should be considered to be the current standard for doing device provisioning. It should also be noted that the WSC technical specification does not say anything about including Application Extension attributes in Beacon or Probe Response frames; the only example use case for these attributes is within the encrypted section of M7 and M8. This patch seems to be doing something very different. Is that use defined in some public specification? > --- > hostapd/config_file.c | 12 ++++++++++++ > src/ap/ap_config.c | 2 ++ > src/ap/ap_config.h | 1 + > src/ap/wps_hostapd.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > src/wps/wps.h | 5 +++++ > src/wps/wps_dev_attr.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ > src/wps/wps_dev_attr.h | 1 + > src/wps/wps_registrar.c | 6 ++++-- > 8 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) hostapd/hostapd.conf should also be updated to document the new configuration parameter, including the format it uses and requirements for the contents (UUID in the beginning). -- Jouni Malinen PGP id EFC895FA _______________________________________________ Hostap mailing list Hostap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/hostap
