All, In my opinion, we must address how the rest of the world beside the USA, UK, FInland etc would need to use a DB(s) and if one or more countries wants to have an offloading database in its regs for one reason or another..that is not out of scope, it is under the DB and regulator control. It may be a great business opportunity, it may be a way for a country with a huge population to do things it cannot do now. I think if it is under the database, and it is something that the regs in China will ask for, why not listen to a presentation with an open mind. Maybe one database will be for one set of circumstances, another for offloading, when needed? or One will be dedicated to more than WSD and have some proprietary things on it, the other will not? I myself would like to learn more of the thoughts of having what Zhu Lei is presenting, and you will be able to ask questions, maybe there will be a slide deck for examples of how her country is thinking.
Knowledge is a good thing…let's give it a chance to be heard under the scope of DB. My 2 cents. Nancy On Mar 13, 2012, at 7:20 PM, Paul Lambert wrote: > > >This is a proposal defining a protocol between WSD and WSDB, so I believe > >it is in scope. Perhaps if we wanted to provide constructive feedback to the > >authors we could suggest revising the terminology of their draft. > > The “coordinating database” is neither a WSD or a WSDB. The constructive > criticism is that this concept is: out-of-scope (IMO), unnecessary and should > be fully removed from the draft and further discussions on this list. > > Paul > > > Paul A. Lambert | Marvell Semiconductor | +1-650-787-9141 > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Zuniga, Juan Carlos > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 6:43 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [paws] Time to present my ID in IETF Paris meeting > > Unfortunately we don’t have a reference architecture to work upon, so people > will make the proposals and comments based on what they understand. > > We have agreed before to limit the terminology to “WSD <-> WSDB” to keep it > simple. > > We know that WSD will be a device and WSDB a server-based service provided by > a WS Service Provider (most likely not the Regulator). > > This is a proposal defining a protocol between WSD and WSDB, so I believe it > is in scope. Perhaps if we wanted to provide constructive feedback to the > authors we could suggest revising the terminology of their draft. > > Jc > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:06 PM > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [paws] Time to present my ID in IETF Paris meeting > > >Why would the chairs mediate this discussion? > > In order to ensure we are not wasting bandwidth on topics that are clearly > outside the WG scope... > And it is your responsibility to moderate to ensure we are making forward > progress.. > And because you get to wear the blue dot ;) > > Sent from my Lumia 800 > From: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley) > Sent: 3/13/2012 6:43 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [paws] Time to present my ID in IETF Paris meeting > > Why would the chairs mediate this discussion? There’s an individual > submission and the author is seeking comments on the list before the > presentation in the f2f. > That is how ietf works, we need comments to the list to make progress one way > or the other. > > - Gabor > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext > Paul Lambert > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:32 PM > To: ZhuLei; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [paws] Time to present my ID in IETF Paris meeting > > Hi Zhu, > > > I am not sure that you would support this idea, but the text describing > > this can make things clearer when talking about this. > > No I do not support the idea of additional layers of “coordinating database”. > Especially for detailed designs using HTTPS. > > > I would not image one database serving huge number of Master devices. For > > some reasons, regulator > >may authorize branches to administrate or maintain white space data base > >which dominates a particular region. > > Out-of-scope and completely unnecessary. When you use SSL to access a bank > account do you care that there may be multiple servers that look like a > single entity to the user? New layers of abstraction are not required for > scalability. The same protocol can be used to one or multiple servers. Yes, > some considerations need to be discussed about authentication. No new > entities, layers, architectural blocks, concepts, frameworks or protocols are > required for “serving a huge number … “. > > I also see that we waste a lot of words on the list on this topic that may be > out of scope (up to chair to mediate …). The purpose of the requirements and > use case process is to create consensus from the top down to facilitate the > creation of a specification of the best possible document from the working > group. We should ignore any discussions and contributions on out-of-scope > contributions and focus on the current scope and work items. > > Paul > > > Paul A. Lambert | Marvell Semiconductor | +1-650-787-9141 > > From: ZhuLei [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 1:47 AM > To: Paul Lambert; [email protected] > Subject: RE: Time to present my ID in IETF Paris meeting > > Hi Paul, > > Do you prefer to remove this intermediary function? The intention of this > draft is still to provide a proposal of framework and protocol, probably > including whole picture with essential elements, discovery, query, update etc. > > As what is mentioned in e-mail list and last F2F meeting, possibly, the PAWS > might be very extensible since the basic concepts, scenarios and requirements > are established upon the FCC and other regulators’ process of white space. We > still have some potential needs doing further at feature level or even > architecture level. At least, the design of this protocol should make sure > this need. From this perspective, authentication and content protection might > be considered further, hopefully, we are able to discuss security in Paris. > > We also really met vary situations of different areas and regions who > dominate a quite number of Master devices. I would not image one database > serving huge number of Master devices. For some reasons, regulator may > authorize branches to administrate or maintain white space data base which > dominates a particular region. I do not think the multiple data bases or > distributed data model framework are controversial to us, but the additional > functions of this coordinating data base. This intermediate node with white > space spectrum decision making function is the issue of extensibility, which > can be helpful when adding some feature which is not desired to main data > base. Decision making function could be not a functionality of main data base > which needs to be very stable and static. If we really extent coexistence or > interference avoidance role to PAWS protocol, it would be easier to extent > intermediary function without impacts on framework of PAWS, and, structure > and protocol of PAWS. This node is believed to exist for this purpose. > > I am not sure that you would support this idea, but the text describing this > can make things clearer when talking about this. > > Best regards, > Zhu Lei > > > 发件人: Paul Lambert [mailto:[email protected]] > 发送时间: 2012年3月13日 15:28 > 收件人: ZhuLei; [email protected] > 主题: RE: Time to present my ID in IETF Paris meeting > > > Did our consensus process include a coordinating intermediary function? > > The coordinating database can get white space channels from database, > receive the white space querying message from master device and > provide the available white space channels for master devices with > some degree decision making process. These decision making process > might provide functionality of white space access protocol power to > response available channels according to received device parameters > (e.g. power, RF parameter), location information(e.g. altitude, > position and direction of antenna ) and some particular white space > spectrum decision making policies. > > Don’t see that this is in scope. Seems inappropriate to create complete IDs > with features that are out-of-scope. > > Paul > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ZhuLei > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 12:02 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [paws] Time to present my ID in IETF Paris meeting > > Hi Folks and chairs, > > As what you might notice, I uploaded a ID on PAWS framework and protocol > which is to fulfill PAWS requirements and regulators’ requirements, > “www.ietf.org/id/draft-lei-paws-framework-datamodel-00.txt”. I would very > like to request 25 minutes presenting and discussing it during IETF Paris > meeting. > > Best regards, > Zhu Lei > _______________________________________________ > paws mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
