Don, As chair, I'll have to ask you to stop arguing against a database discovery protocol. That is clearly within the scope for the wg, as the charter says: "Objectives The overall goals of this working group are to:
1. Standardize a mechanism for discovering a white space database." and it doesn't mention the optionality. ietf is contribution driven, if you are not interested in the discovery, then you do not need to contribute to it. But do not try to persuade the wg to not work on a piece which is in charter and folks are willing to do; that is not how ietf works. - Gabor From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Don Joslyn Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 12:21 PM To: Paul Lambert; Das, Subir; [email protected] Subject: Re: [paws] Database Discovery Question See reply below. Don From: Paul Lambert [mailto:[email protected]]<mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 2:36 PM To: Don Joslyn; Das, Subir; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [paws] Database Discovery Question Paul A. Lambert | Marvell | +1-650-787-9141 From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Don Joslyn Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 10:31 AM To: Das, Subir; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [paws] Database Discovery Question I don't think PAWS should define discovery, I think the protocol should simply start after a device has "found" the correct database to use. I feel this way for many reasons: 1) In the US, a radio is certified to work with one or more specific databases. So the device will be pre-configured to contact specific databases, no need to implement a discovery service. If the device is programmed to work with more than one database provider, the device owner will configure which one to use based on the relationship that they have established with the database provider (for example, which one they are paying to use). When new databases come online, users would likely appreciate an option to connect to a system additional services or perhaps lower prices for the service. [Don - Yes, this may be desired, but can the device immediately take advantage of these new database records and decide on its own to use a new one that has a lower cost? I would think that the device owner still needs to decide to use the lower cost service (may even have to consider why it costs less), pay for the service, and then configure the device to use it. I'm not sure how this can automatically happen between the discovery service and WSD. Will cost considerations be part of the discovery solution? Is it cost per month, year, lifetime, message count, etc? You mentioned cost, but there can be many other parameters that can influence the selection outcome (SLA, features, etc.), where will we stop?] If we go strictly on the preconfiguration model ... we don't even need PAWS. The relationship you describe would have defined all the interfaces. If we are in the business of having open interfaces, we need to provide a means to discocovery and select DBs. [Don - I don't agree with the all-or-nothing argument, using discovery is optional (per PAWS requirements). Establishing a standard protocol between WSDB and WSD is still valuable because, for example, will can still lower the cost to device manufacturers because they will only need to implement code for a single standard defined interface.] Paul 2) Discovery services like LoST are based on location, but the device's relationship with a database service is not known or considered. While it may seem simple to configure LoST or similar service to point to a database service based on location, how do you point to the one that the customer has a relationship with, for example, paid to use? I do realize that this may not be an issue in every country. 3) If PAWS defines a globally applicable discovery process and either picks an existing protocol (like LoST) or designs one, most likely it would include a centrally based discovery service. What entity will be responsible for hosting and configuring the central discovery service? How will PAWS define this as a global solution, and deal with the politics between countries? 4) Some radio manufacturers do not have very much ROM to include even more code on their device. I'm concerned that discovery will consume even more space on the radio, space that they may not even have. 5) I believe that defining discovery will take more time than defining the protocol between the WSDB and WSD. I think that database discovery should be left to each country to define based on their own requirements and Whitespace ecosystem. Regards, Don From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Das, Subir Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 5:26 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [paws] Database Discovery Question During PAWS session in Paris IETF, there were a lot of questions/discussions on 'Discovery' of Database. It was not clear to me except if we are talking about "Database Server Discovery", in particular, the domain name or the IP address of the 'Server" that is hosting the database. OTH, I felt that some folks may have different views and they would possibly like to see more features than just discovering the domain name or IP address of the "Database Server". In some offline discussions, I was told that it may be similar to what LOST (RFC 5222) has defined. I read the LOST protocol and associated architecture and my current understanding is that the LOST use case is different than what we are trying to achieve via PAWS. Here is my understanding of the operating model of PAWS interface (when defined): -"Fixed/Mode II WSD" (per figure 1,<draft-das-paws-protocol-01>) can only query the database -The manufacturer of the "Fixed/Mode II WSD" may be different than owner/operator of this device -"Fixed/Mode II WSD" is certified by the regulatory body of the region that they serve - Either the "Fixed/Mode II WSD" device operator or the device vendor has an a-priori relationship with one or more covering database administrators. This relationship is utilized to either configure or enable the discovery of the proper database to contact in the current location I would like to know the group's view of the above model. To me, finding the emergency services or restaurant information near my location is different than getting to know a server that can provide me with channel/frequency/power and other information in the location where "Fixed/Mode II WSD" is situated. In addition, emergency services do not require a subscription and the service is mandated by the Government/regulatory bodies. Some may argue that 'White Space' service may be free as well, but to my understanding it is not quite the similar model as emergency services. I hope with this thread we can clarify/understand the discovery issue. Regards, _Subir
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
