Guys, I think given the Global community that will be using this Protocol,
On Feb 2, 2012, at 12:48 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Pretty good overall. I'll keep on my usual track since I seem > stuck on it here;-) > > On 02/02/2012 08:37 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> Threat 6: Third party tracking of white space device location >> >> >> A master device needs to provide its location to the white >> space database in order to obtain the channel availability >> information at that location. Such location information can be >> gleaned by an eavesdropper. A master device may prefer to keep >> the location information secret. Hence the protocol should >> provide a means to protect the location information and prevent >> tracking of locations associated with a white space database. > > What's wrong with not wanting the DB to track me (as a master > device)? Could be that current known regulators don't like > anonymous masters, but that may change. (So I think 3rd party > here is wrong.) > > Why is it only location tracking that's of concern? Why is > exposing identity not an equal deal? Same logic as above. > > > S. > > _______________________________________________ > paws mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
