What I notice when I look at regulations is how we see different classes of information required at different points in the regulation-required interchanges that wouldn't occur to us protocol designers. I think it is foolish to hard wire any specific piece of information to any specific protocol exchange, because some regulator will do something we would classify as silly, but the implementations are stuck. As an example, in the US regulations, there is information that we would classify as "registration" data required to be in the "spectrum query" message exchange.
So, I do see that a great deal of information exchanged will need to be flexible where it goes. In this regard, I think that when a device first connects to a database, there will be information exchanged, and I'll bet there will be circumstances where the information the client sends will depend in some way on information the server has. I think this may also happen on the spectrum query. Therefore, I would like to make sure that it's possible to have 3 way exchanges in all circumstances. Client to server, server to client, client to server. This is not a 3 way message exchange on an unreliable transport. It lets the client send information dependent on what it gets from the server. So, my answer is more complex. I don't think we need a separate message to ask about the regulatory domain. I think the "registration" message exchange is a 3 way exchange. If you wanted to send regulatory domain in the second message, and get regulatory required information not sent in the first message sent in the third message of the transaction, that would work for me. Brian <as individual> From: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 19:11:40 -0400 To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [paws] need for DB initialization message This thread was a bit derailed, so I’d like to get back to the original question, which was whether we need a DB initialization message as proposed in draft-das or not. We seem to converge on the discovery of the regulatory domain, ie that the regulatory domain can be discovered during the DB discovery process, and we do not need a separate message to ask the DB what regulatory domain the master is in. Then, the question is whether the masters need to contact the DB prior to any other communication, to learn the operating rules for that regulatory domain. The alternative would be that the masters are preconfigured with the operating rules for the regulatory domains they are going to operate in. In the F2F, there were opinions on both sides, but not enough to call a consensus. So, please send your preference on the need for DB initialization, to the list. We need to make a decision on this and some other issues, so we could move forward creating a wg document. - Gabor From: ext Rosen, Brian [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 5:15 PM To: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley) Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [paws] need for DB initialization message <as individual> I'm not so sure you need something separate for domain. ISTM that the DB discovery could return it (possibly as a parameter on the DB URI). OTOH, you might very well want to receive from the DB some kind of data specification (that is, what is required to be provided in the registration), rather than having it totally wired in to domain. That means, to me, that the registration is a 4 way message exchange: 1. Device to DB: Authenticate me please 2. DB to device: Authentication accepted, send me this data 3. Device to DB: Here is my registration data 4. DB to device: Registration succeeded. Now, having said that, you might just get authentication out of the TLS session establishment, this not needing step 1. Brian On Aug 9, 2012, at 8:02 PM, <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Folks, During the Vancouver F2F discussions we had some good discussions, but no agreement on whether an initialization message, as proposed in draft-das is necessary or not. You may check the minutes to see what was said at the mike: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/minutes/minutes-84-paws People spoke mostly in favor, but there were people who also said that this message is redundant with registration message. Question#1: need for an initialization message Unfortunately we did not have time to discuss the DB discovery aspect, and that may be related to this topic. The only DB discovery document available currently, http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-probasco-paws-discovery-01.txt, proposes, that the master device contacts a pre-provisioned discovery server and provides its location, and in return the discovery server returns the URI of the DB for that regulatory domain. At this point, the master device knows which DB to contact, but it does not necessarily know what regulatory domain that DB belongs to. Thus, it doesn’t know what are the operating rules, whether it has to authenticate, or register, etc. Thus, it seems logical to me that the master device first queries the DB to find out the regulatory domain. We even have such a requirement in the requirement draft, requirement: “P.3: The protocol MUST support determination of regulatory domain governing its current location.” The information about the regulatory domain may be cached, and the master device may not need to place that query every time, but this message exchange may be necessary in certain cases. Any comments to this point? Question#2 Then, it is a slightly separate issue, if this message exchange has to take place, then what additional information the DB returns. draft-das proposes that regulatory domain specific information be returned to the master device. Question#3 Yet another separate point is that draft-das proposes to use this initialization message also to initiate client authentication (putting shared secret vs cert issue aside for the time being). In cases when the master device does not know the regulatory domain it is in, then it does not know whether authentication is required in that regulatory domain or not; so why would initiate authentication then? Similar comment applies to draft-wei, where it is proposed that after DB discovery the master device authenticates at TLS layer and performs registration; how does it know that it has to authenticate and register, if it doesn’t know the regulatory domain? In my opinion (chair hat off), the sequence of events should be sg like this: 1. DB discovery (may be skipped if cached information available) 2. Regulatory domain query (may be skipped if cached information available) 3. Authentication (if required) 4. Registration (if required) 5. Channel availability query (may be combined with registration?) Comments are welcome and expected. - Gabor _______________________________________________ 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
