Issues with new D-Bus API

[Marcel Holtmann]

Hi Witold,

> > Do we have a list (or can easily generate it) of information that
> > NetworkManager (or ConnMan, etc., for that matter) currently need from
> > these IEs?
> > 
> Looking at NM sources, it seams that it retrieves following information
> for WPA and RSN:
> - group suite
> - list of pairwise suites
> - list of key management suites
> - preauth capability
> and additionally PMKID list for RSN:

does it make use of pairwise and group suite values? Maybe it does for
presenting them to the UI to choose from. Which is actually pointless
from a user perspective. The important is the key management.

> Nevertheless, it only make any use of pairwise/group ciphers and key
> management settings.
> 
> I have no idea what other clients do with IEs.

In ConnMan, I am just extracting the key management value. That is
enough for us. The group and pairwise suites values are total overload
for the end user and they will not make any good use of it.

For a more general client of wpa_supplicant it might be useful in some
ways.

> I propose to add string array Security property to BSS object with two
> possible elements "rsn" and "wpa" and add two new interfaces to BSS objects:
> fi.w1.wpa_supplicant1.Interface.BSS.WPA
> fi.w1.wpa_supplicant1.Interface.BSS.RSN (or WPA2)
> each containing string array properties KeyManagement, Group, Pairwise
> and whatever currently clients need.
> 
> In BSSAdded signal second parameter we would call above properties like
> WPA.Group and RSN.Group in order to distinguish them.
> 
> Any thoughts?

Either we do "WPA : dict" and "RSN : dict" wich then contains the same
key names from the Interface capabilities.

Or we just do "Group", "Pairwise", "Protocol" etc. properties as part of
the BSS object. These then combine the values retrieved from both IEs.

> Another unrelated issue:
> Would you mind changing fi.w1.wpa_supplicant1.Interface.BSS an
> fi.w1.wpa_supplicant1.Interface.Network interface names to
> fi.w1.wpa_supplicant1.BSS fi.w1.wpa_supplicant1.Network?

I personally don't mind. It is just a string. And I was wondering why
the "Interface." part was in there, but then I didn't care.

Regards

Marcel