I also think it's a valuable capability. Brian
On Jan 18, 2012, at 12:22 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > A clarification with regard to the need for push notifications. I am not > aware that this is an Ofcom requirement. In their last consultation Ofcom's > description of a master device says that it must "cease transmission > immediately where the time validity expires or where it moves outside of the > geographic area of validity". The master polls every x hours (e.g. every two > hours), using a periodicity set by regulation, in order to maintain validity > for the TVWS channel it is using, and does not need to be able to receive > pushed information. This works because any changes to channel availability > (due to a local news event requiring wireless microphones for example) have a > lead time, which give the opportunity for the channel to be cleared. > Microphones needing to be operational more quickly than x hours could be > operated in other spectrum (for example). The same process would enable a > network to be turned off within x hours if Ofcom so desired. > > Having said that, I am in favour of there being a push capability from the > database to masters. I just think it would not be implemented by all masters > if not required the regulator, so would be optional. > > Regards > > Andy > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: 18 January 2012 16:51 > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [paws] next steps for the wg > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > paws mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
