Hi Gabor, I don't think you can call this a full review, but I do have a few questions/issues.
Two general questions: Could my cell phone or Wifi-enabled device be a Slave or Master Device in order to make use of the database or is the intent that only base stations be the target? Also, have we liaised this document to the IEEE 802.11 people and do/would they care (see below about licensed/unlicensed)? 4.1. Database Discovery (and elsewhere): > 4.1. Database Discovery > > Different regulators may have different requirements for the approval > and operation of databases, such as: > > o A regulator may only allow a limited number of certified databases > to operate. It also may require the certification of each device- > to-database pairing. > o A regulator may maintain a trusted website that lists all approved > databases, known as the Listing Server. It also may mandate how > devices use the listing server. > > o A regulator may allow each database to define its own terms of > use, so that, for example, an approved device may not be able to > access all approved databases. > The basis of this document is that the regulators are in direct contact with the Master Device. I have some concerns about that approach: 1. It would seem to me computationally intensive on the part of the regulator to compute a geometry/contour to determine which frequencies are available. As much as I would be worried about a single request, I don't see why regulators would want to take such aggregate load. Has a regulator agreed to do so? Or am I wrong about the computation? 2. Much of this seems to be predicated on micro-auctions in secondary spectrum. Interesting idea and worth pursuing, however, the one week period below seems to lead us to question what "micro" means in this context. See below for that. 3. I may be demonstrating my parochial nature, but there is a lot of complexity in this document that is predicated on the assumption that licensed use will be permitted. That is- a specific station license is required to transmit. Wouldn't this protocol simplify considerably if it focused on unlicensed use? In fact, wouldn't it boil down to a file transfer protocol and a database format as opposed to bouncing all of these queries back and forth? My question really is how the authors came to this approach. I can imagine some arguments, such as wanting to track down bad actors, but I raise the issue because of the plethora of PII that could end up getting shipped to regulators on a regular basis over this. Section 4.1.1: > Within a regulatory domain that has a Database Listing Server, a > Device MUST use it to determine the URLs of databases for the domain. > The URI of the Listing Server for a regulatory domain MAY be > preconfigured in the device. Where allowed by the regulator, the > Device MAY save the database list and SHOULD contact the Database > Listing Server periodically to update its list. The time between > such updates MUST be no longer than one week, or any update interval > required by the applicable regulatory domain, whichever is shorter. I presume that in this paragraph, when you say "Device" you mean "Master Device". going further, it seems to me that the point should not be whether or not such a device has direct Internet connectivity, but whether or not it can receive updates. Those updates could conceivably come from many sources, including ones in which IP is not used. Moreover, there seems to have been an arbitrary period of time chosen (1 week). Why not state that in terms of the EventTime in AVAIL_SPECTRUM_RESP? Thanks, Eliot _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
