See response below...

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rosen, 
Brian
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 10:42 AM
To: Peter McCann
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [paws] Database Discovery Question

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.

[Don - In the US, if the slave device is a personal/portable Mode I device, the 
master device provides a channel list to the slave device, but the master 
device must validate the slave device (FCCID) first via the Whitespace 
database.]

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
_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws

Reply via email to