Hi Brian, The intention is that each DS has global scope. The WSD does not have to know what country it is in.
In the US the I don't believe the discovery model falls apart. Discovery will return all suitable WSDB addresses allowing the WSD to make its own selection. Also I don't know why a WSD would be restricted to a business relationship with a single WSDB. One small example, perhaps my device has relationship with two different WSDB, each DB provides a different 'additional service' which might be the ultimate deciding factor why my WSD selects one WSDB over the other (at a given location, time, or user-selected service request). But in in case discovery would work the same. Kind Regards, Scott From: "ext Rosen, Brian" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:50:08 -0400 To: Scott Probasco <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [paws] draft document for Discovery When I do the discovery, I don't know which country I am in. I can't know enough to query the right DS unless we put country boundary polygons in the device. Of course, I forgot to add to this that if there is the U.S. model of competing DBs, then the whole discovery mechanism falls apart, and you need configuration, because if the device knows who its business relationship is with, it can know the URI. Brian On Jul 10, 2012, at 3:38 PM, <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Brian, Comments below: MSP-> Kind Regards, Scott From: "ext Rosen, Brian" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:27:31 -0400 To: Scott Probasco <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [paws] draft document for Discovery This re-invents LoST without the extensive mechanisms for self organizing databases. LoST has a query that sends location in, with a Service URN (which for this use would be "I want a WSDB for this location" and you get back (a list of) URIs. That's what you propose, without the service URN because you want a special location based discovery mechanism just for WSDBs. What you don't deal with is how a WSDB DS finds out about all other WSDB DSs. That's the LoST "Forest Guide". The FG works without a root, and allows cooperating LoST servers to refer queries to the right server. MSP->If each WSD vendor arranges a service level agreement with a WSDB DS (or provides their own WSDB DS) then it is not obvious to me why a WSDB DS would need to find out about other WSDB DSs. Each WSDB DS is independent. If vendor X intends their WSD to operate in Country Y, then WSDB DS used by vendor X must include appropriate Country Y mapping information (location to WSDB or WSDB listing server) in their WSDB DS. It's not really a great idea to bake a URI into a device. Who knows what will happen over the life of a device? MSP->Including an address in the device does not imply that the address cannot be changed if needed. SW updates, device management or similar can allow for changes if needed. I take your point, these changes should be exceptions rather than regular events. The existing LoST discovery mechanism is built for widespread deployment in ISPs. We may need something that works well without that. There aren't a lot of good mechanisms that really work well - you either have a root of some sort, or, as you propose, a starting seed. The root problem is who runs the root, and the starting seed problem is the lifetime of the seed. You note that the seed gets nothing out of the exchange - it doesn't get to serve the query, it only gets to refer to someone who does. MSP->It is not clear to me what business model would support a sophisticated infrastructure as described in the LoST Architecture & Framework RFC 5582. I actually think this is not an important problem to solve really well. The most common deployment model is going to be a tower and clients. The tower can be configured, and either the clients learn from the tower, or the tower handles the database query itself. Client discovery in that case could be the LoST discovery mechanism. We have to handle the self organizing case (say a MANET) where one or more devices have some other path to the Internet to get to the WSDB. They will need real discovery and may not have a cooperating ISP. While I really don't like configuration, it may be the only viable way to do it. MSP->Configuration is pragmatic and can be easily deployed Brian On Jul 9, 2012, at 5:04 PM, <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hello All, Please find a link below to a draft submission for the Discovery process as described in the Use Cases & Requirements document. We are looking forward to your review and comments as well as discussion at IETF#84. Abstract: A white space master device needs to query a white space database and obtain information about available spectrum/channels prior to operation. White space databases which contain information about available spectrum/channels are associated with a regulatory domain. A white space master device needs to discover the relevant white space database(s) given its current location and in which regulatory domain that it is operating. The white space database discovery is the preliminary step that a white space master device has to perform. URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-probasco-paws-discovery-00.txt Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-probasco-paws-discovery-00 Kind Regards, Scott & Raj _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
