Hello Patrik, Tomasz,


Thank you for your feedback. Then the proposal could be:


void Start_STA_WPS(string authentication)


void CancelWPS(void)


void Start_AP_WPS(string authentication)



I removed all parameters except authentication, assuming that connman will operate in this way:  


-          when starting connman is informed by the wpa_supplicant of the interfaces that support P2P => these will be always the last to be considered when Start_STA_WPS or Start_AP_WPS are called, in case there is a failure (or WPS not supported) on the other interfaces (STA and AP)


-          if the system has multiple interfaces connman will try WPS STA on STA one for first and not P2P one (that normally also supports STA), and the same for WPS AP that will be tried on the tethering one, not STA or P2P. that is very probably what the user wants.


-          If there is only one WiFi interface supporting multiple roles (STA, AP, P2P)

a.       Start_STA_WPS

                                                               i.      If connected STA: disconnect and then start a WPS STA session

                                                             ii.      If connected P2P: disconnect and then start a WPS STA session

                                                            iii.      If tethering enabled: disable tethering and start WPS STA session

b.      Start_AP_WPS

                                                               i.      Similar algorithm of above but for AP


-          Authenthication: Empty means PBC, a value means PIN number. This also means that for enrollee role the UI must generate a valid PIN and provide it to both connman and to the user so he can enter it in the AP.


-          Roles: for STA it is enrollee for AP it is registrar; as requested it can be extended to support other combination of roles in main.conf


What do you think?






-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Patrik Flykt [mailto:Patrik.Flykt@linux.intel.com]
Inviato: venerdì 10 giugno 2016 13:54
A: Tomasz Bursztyka; MANIEZZO Marco (MM); connman@lists.01.org
Cc: Blanquicet-Melendez Jose (MM)
Oggetto: Re: R: [RFC] Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) connection



                Hi Marco,


On Thu, 2016-06-09 at 16:07 +0200, Tomasz Bursztyka wrote:

> Hi Marco,


> > Thank you very much for your feedback. For this proposal we based on

> > this assumption: we are talking about DBUS interfaces, these are not

> > directly the interface the end user will need to understand, in

> > between there must be and application for shell/graphical UI => here

> > the developer may not be a WiFi expert, so we put all the parameters

> > of StartWPS and CancelWPS optional (except authentication), and

> > connman will try to figure out an automatic behavior => this already

> > goes in the direction you proposed

> >  

> > On the other hand the automatic behavior may not suit all cases and

> > an expert developer may know how to manage several WiFi interfaces

> > (in our case three, STA, P2P and AP) => in this case the optional

> > parameters can come in handy.

> >  

> > “Ifname" : optional, meaning it can be empty, but with it we don’t

> > need other methods when the UI needs to choose between STA-WPS or

> > AP-WPS, or there is a P2P interface that can be used also as an

> > alternative STA or AP with WPS


> Still, ConnMan never uses ifnames as an entry point for a decision.

> Actually, the only place where you will see an interface name is in

> the description of a Service entry (Ethernet dict attribute).

> This is enforced, you can't change that rule :) we don't want users or

> UI code to mess up with interfaces directly.


> Make it work for 1 device first.

> For P2P, you could use an alternate method called "Pair()" maybe. The

> role is decided during pairing anyway (if I remember well? this is so

> far away...).


> Let's see how to solve that for 2+ device later.

> (devices could be ordered by their support: the device which supports

> more technologies would be the first, etc...

> ConnMan would loop on them, each time StartWPS() - or Pair if

> supported - failed. Just a quick idea.)


I suppose this will be used after setting 'Tethering' true for a technology. I think ConnMan can pick up a/the tethering WiFi device which supports WPS once WPS is requested. Then no ifname is needed.


The P2P and STA only interfaces should be identifiable, there exists code that does try to figure out AP support when tethering (see e.g. 452fa8db3eb7e88fe93c93569f21884697f2d2c6 and where it ended up after db79090b895f23544d54abbf230efadbae9ec13b).


> > "Type" and "Pin" you are proposing to have only one parameter

> > “authentication” but when the device with connman is enrollee it

> > must show a PIN to the user, not receive one: then we need to have

> > two parameters (Type, PIN)


> We never supported the registrar side on current WPS support in

> ConnMan (as far as I remember at least).

> So if the Agent is requesting about WPS, up to the UI to provide a PIN

> the user would use if user wants to use PIN method.


For the AP case an empty PIN should once again mean "pushbutton", while a PIN with a value is, well, a pin.


> > like we propose, or if you prefer only one (Authentication) it must

> > be parsed in the following way:

> > -          A string like “PIN” which means the connman must provide

> > a PIN to the GUI so that the user can enter it in the other device

> > (normally the AP)

> > -          A string containing a number like “12345678” which means

> > this is the PIN to be used

> > -          Empty: means use PBC


The pin needs to be set beforehand, there are no Agent method calls to be done for this. And after setting a pin that same entity can call StartWPS to get the procedure into a running state.


> > “role” – optional, meaning it can be empty, but while for the STA I

> > agree with you it mostly is an enrollee, the AP is a more

> > complicated system; why not offer the possibility to the developer

> > to choose the role if he wants (or if he needs)?


> AP mode in ConnMan is a very simplistic one. Actually, wpa_s does not

> provide much feature there as well (compared to hostapd).

> You could stick with registrar and that's it.


> If you want to differentiate, you could add a configuration entry in

> main.conf (like APWPSMode=<registrar/enrollee> ? registrar would be

> default)

> Less stuff to expose through DBus at least.  I would be surprised

> people really care about such option anyway.


Setting the precise role seems to be unnecessary for now. It can be added once there is evidence that it won't work without. I'm not sure anybody can master more than a pin and calling start and stop here :-)


> Hope it clarifies things.


I hope my comments do so too.






Confidential Notice: This message - including its attachments - may contain proprietary, confidential and/or legally protected information and is intended solely for the use of the designated addressee(s) above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any downloading, copying, disclosure, distribution or use of the contents of the above information is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this communication by mistake, please forward the message back to the sender at the email address above, delete the message from all mailboxes and any other electronic storage medium and destroy all copies.
Disclaimer Notice: Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be safe or error-free. Therefore we do not assure that this message is complete or accurate and we do not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message.