An example: A white space database may decide to withdraw channels that were previously indicated as being available for use to a set of master devices (reason being a need for those channels by some emergency service). Devices register with the database as part of the initial authentication/authorization process and hence the database would have the capability of sending such messages only to the relevant devices and not to all devices. It does result in state being maintained at the database.
The requirement for such capability is needed by Ofcom (AFAIK) and hence the proposal. Solutions will need to consider how to deal with this optimally. -Raj On 1/18/12 10:43 AM, "ext Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]> wrote: >Sorry to be slow. >How does the database know which changes are of interest to any >particular registered client? I would hope that it does not push all >changes to all clients. But i not, it needs to somehow guess which >changes matter. Would it keep track of what answers it has sent to each >such registered clients, and try to track which changes may affect >actions of that client? > >Yours, >Joel > >On 1/18/2012 11:38 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> Hi Joel, >> >> The proposal to include unsolicited Push notifications from the white >> space database to a master device is different from the Request/Response >> mechanism itself. >> A master device making a request for available channels expects a >>response >> in some time window. Not proposing we change that. >> However the white space database knows of devices which have registered >> with it. And hence can send push notifications at will without >>necessarily >> having to react to a request. >> >> -Raj >> >> On 1/17/12 8:03 PM, "ext Joel M. Halpern"<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> While responses have time windows, as far as I know, requests do not >>> specify when the response will be acted upon, if ever, or for how long. >>> >>> As such, this seems to imply either that we add significantly more >>> information to requests, or that any change in anything that has ever >>> been asked for gets pushed? >>> That does not sound like a good design. >>> >>> Yours, >>> Joel >>> >>> On 1/17/2012 6:08 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Gabor, >>>> >>>> On 1/12/12 8:26 PM, "ext [email protected]"<[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> P.3 currently says: The protocol between the master device and the >>>>>WS >>>>> Database MUST support pushing updates in channel availability >>>>>changes >>>>> to subjects. >>>>> There were comments that this requirement involves a mechanism, we >>>>> should >>>>> reformulate to be mechanism agnostic. >>>>> There was a suggestion to "make the requirement "quick way to change >>>>> availability" rather than imply a mechanism.". >>>>> The use case is that if the channel availability changes in the DB, >>>>>the >>>>> client has to be able to detect it and get the new availability list >>>>> within a time period set by the regulator. >>>>> Can someone send suggested text on how to reformulate this >>>>>requirement? >>>> >>>> The requirement to enable Push notifications to be sent to a white >>>>space >>>> device which has registered with a database is important especially in >>>> the >>>> context of Ofcom requirements (I believe). The reasons for such push >>>> notifications could be for purposes that go beyond just channel >>>> availability updates. A proposal for the requirement is as follows: >>>> >>>> Requirement: A white space database should be able to send unsolicited >>>> messages to a master device which has registered with it. The protocol >>>> between the WS database and master device MUST allow for push >>>> notifications to be sent from the database to the master device. >>>> >>>> -Raj >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> paws mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
