That's the question I'm struggling with too. It's easy just to assume that authority on spectrum issues descends from and is delegated from ITU-R, which is what led to my initial suggestion. But, as Brian points out, there are operational issues with the centralized approach.
Perhaps we can only rely on the individual national certification processes that will test each device for non-interference and correct operation to guarantee that the device will only connect to an "authorized" database. But, it seems like a natural question to ask how a device can check for itself whether a database is authorized by the regulator under which it finds itself. This would be necessary, for example, if a database originally configured into the device was de-certified by the regulator, and seems to be the motivation for Ofcom to publish its approved list and require that all devices consult it before operation. -Pete Vincent Chen wrote: > How would a regulator sanction the "forest guide". > > Or, equivalently, when a device gets a LoST Server, can it trust it to > give the list sanctioned by a regulator? > That's the bootstrap step that I don't quite understand. > > -vince > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Peter McCann > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Ok, I just read 5582. > > Seems ok to leave the decision of which forest guide to use up to > each > manufacturer. Will this be able to satisfy the Ofcom requirement to > consult their regulator-maintained list before connecting to the > database? Should we consider that consultation part of the discovery > process? > > -Pete > > > > > Rosen, Brian wrote: > The LoST forest guide idea does that without > anywhere near as much > infrastructure. > > Basically, it > relies on > cooperating national servers to provide > appropriate referral > services. > > In fact the LoST forest guide does EXACTLY what we > want > - given a > location and a URN indicating what service you want, it > provides a > referral to the right server in the right area for that > service, based > on a set of polygons. > > Brian On Jun > 12, 2013, at > 1:51 PM, Peter McCann > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > Understood. >> >> But, I can't think of anyone else in a better > position to resolve >> territorial disputes. Even if they don't run > the service >> themselves, it seems like they're the best ones to > publish the >> national polygons and the list of pointers to national > authorities. >> >> -Pete >> >> >> Rosen, Brian wrote: > >>> We have > history with ideas like that. Try to follow the history of >>> ENUM. > It failed, miserably. >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> On Jun 12, > 2013, at 1:40 > PM, Peter McCann <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> > Maybe > the ITU-R should run a "root" discovery service, pointing at >>>> > national servers and mapping geographic coordinates to nation states. > >>>> Each national server can list all the databases approved for use > >>>> within that nation. The WSD can then pick one based on its > business >>>> relationships. >>>> >>>> -Pete >>>> >>>> > >>>> Rosen, > Brian wrote: >>>>> <as individual> No, but we are discussing multiple > URLs for the >>>>> SAME db, not multiple dbs. >>>>> >>>>> Multiple > DBs arise because regulators want competitive options. >>>>> The list > manager can list all the approved DBs, but a given WSDB >>>>> isn't > likely to be able to use all of them, or even most of them. >>>>> > >>>>> I have to bring up business models in an IETF list, but it seems > we >>>>> may need to at least understand what has been thought about > with >>>>> multiple competing dbs. >>>>> >>>>> The models I've heard > about are: 1. The manufacturer contracts with >>>>> a db, or a db per > region to serve the devices it manufacturers. This >>>>> is usually a > lifetime of the device arrangement. Some provision has >>>>> to be > made to allow the owner to use a different DB, and some >>>>> provision > has to be made to allow a new db to take over a defunct >>>>> (for > whatever reason) db URL. >>>>> >>>>> 2. A service provider providing a > service over WS, the usual example >>>>> is an ISP, contracts for the > db service for all the devices it >>>>> provides its service to. This > is annoying to provision unless the >>>>> device comes from the SP as > part of the service or a truck roll is >>>>> needed. Some provision > has to be made to change SPs. Sometimes the >>>>> SP IS the db > operator. >>>>> >>>>> 3. A db decides it will offer its service for > free. Any device can >>>>> use it. >>>>> >>>>> 4. The end user of > the device contracts with the db for service. >>>>> This usually > requires provisioning by the device owner as part of >>>>> the sign- up > process. >>>>> >>>>> 5. A notion of "roaming" or "pomading" is > supported where your >>>>> "home" db has a relationship with a > "visiting" db in another region >>>>> who will supply service when the > device is in the other region. >>>>> >>>>> And of course there is the > single db per region model where all >>>>> devices in that region use a > single db, with some cost sharing, >>>>> regulatory fee or tax > arrangement >>>>> >>>>> For all of the multiple db per region cases, > there ends up being >>>>> one, or at most a small number of dbs, that a > given device can use >>>>> within that region. We could imagine > discovery services that had >>>>> some way of knowing, or themselves > discovering and caching which of >>>>> several dbs a given device could > use. Not sure that makes a whole >>>>> lot of sense. But it makes > virtually no sense to just discover the >>>>> list of possible services > and then try them to see which one likes >>>>> you. >>>>> >>>>> > The > notion of caching to avoid asking has some merit. You could >>>>> > cache the db URL you successfully used last, try it, get an error >>>>> > if you are out of area (or a referral for case 5) and then, if >>>>> > you do get an error, use the discovery mechanism to at least find >>>>> > out what region you are in. >>>>> >>>>> I don't think that we should > be standardizing queries between >>>>> devices and dbs that won't serve > them. A device should not >>>>> routinely ask a db for service when > there is no prior arrangement >>>>> for service. >>>>> >>>>> > Brian > >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 5, 2013, at 2:14 PM, Vincent Chen > <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Brian, >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> First of all, reliability, geographic diversity, > capacity, etc are >>>>> usually done with common URLs. Witness > www.google.com >>>>> <http://www.google.com/> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > Your example makes sense in this case, because www.google.com >>>>> > <http://www.google.com/> is a single corporate entity and it >>>>> > manages its own reliability, diversity, etc. >>>>> >>>>> In > contrast, WSDBs are offered by different entities (sometimes >>>>> > competing). The equivalence you are asking for would be >>>>> > http://www.wsdb.com <http://www.wsdb.com/> and be automatically >>>>> > routed to different implementations. I don't think that's what we >>>>> > had in mind. >>>>> >>>>> -vince >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
