Doesn't the slave get it's database access through the master? If that's true, the problem you are worried about doesn't exist.
Brian On Apr 18, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Peter McCann wrote: > I agree with Brian that LoST could be a good model for discovering > the appropriate database for the region you're in. A nation may > decide to subdivide their territory into provinces or states, each > of which maintains its own database. > > I think it would be a mistake to assume that there is a single, > pre-defined relationship for one device with just one database. > In particular, I think there is a thorny issue that will arise > with management of secure credentials on whitespace devices, > illustrated by the first use case in Section 4.2.1 of > draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-03. Step 9 of > that use case says: > > 9. Once the master/AP has met all regulatory domain requirements > (e.g. validating the Device ID with the trusted database, etc) > the master provides the list of channels locally available to > the slave/user device. > > My question is, what if the master device has a relationship with > one database, but the slave device has a relationship with another? > How is the master's database supposed to validate the credentials > of the slave device, if we don't have some sort of common trust > anchor? Or will this "validation" be simply an insecure check of > an ID against a whitelist/blacklist? Who will allocate Device IDs? > Will they be specific to a particular database operator, or do we > need some common top-level allocation format? > > -Pete > _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
