Zhu Lei,
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Zhulei (A) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi,**** > > ** ** > > Thinks occur to me, and provide the ideas before really get it.**** > > ** ** > > I supposed that DB as service to discover should be an Internet service, > but not sure any more by looking at proposed text in section 4.1.1 of paws > protocol-05. **** > > ** ** > > Some detail implementations occur to me if I can seriously think over the > proposal:**** > > **1. **IF regulatory seems to maintain a location and DB list > mapping in dominated area? IF regulatory seems maintain the DB URL list of > other regulatory domain(“S”)? **** > > I would still think proposal in section 4.1.1 of paws-protocol-05 is about > a very short term considerations, should be not exactly same proposal as > that in Wei’s DB discovery protocol. So, the motivations and the scenarios > have not been cleared.**** > > ** > - The Listing Server, as described in 4.1.1, may not be universal: - It will not be in every regulatory domain - There is no requirement that a Listing Server for one regulator does about other regulatory domains - A Device MAY treat the list as validation that the DB it uses is on the list, rather than for discovery Thus, I agree that it does not serve the same purpose as a DB Discovery protocol. > ** > > **2. **The implementations of section 4.1.1 of paws-potocol-05 is > not ready actually, and even not discussed before. I am not able to image > the interfaces and message as implementation issues, as they are all about > a protocol. > - Section 4.1.1 was proposed in version 04 to address the Ofcom/ETSI requirements that was discussed on the list after the F2F. You are correct that the message between a Device and Listing Server is listed as out of scope. Are you suggesting that it should be in scope? > **3. **Still not ready to accept HTTP 302/301 method to reply more > than one referring destinations. I think this idea is not about complexity, > just wrong. > Agreed. The question is really between the two choices: a) Use HTTP 302/301 to redirect to a single destination, or b) Use DbUpdateSpec message to list more than one alternatives b) is more flexible, but potentially more complex. ------------------------ Bottom line: Is there a compelling use case where a Discovery Service is NOT preconfigured that: - Is "trustworthy" to all regulators, databases, and devices? - Is easily deployable? If not, do we need LoST? or just a protocol to encode the request and response? -vince
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
