On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Pete Resnick <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 8/21/14 2:59 AM, Vincent Chen wrote: > > = Section 5.2 = >> I'd like to discuss why the device serial number needs to be included in >> the device descriptor, rather than some (perhaps persistent) randomly >> generated device identifier that is used only in the context of this >> protocol (which would better protect the privacy of the user of the >> device, since the whitespaces database administrator wouldn't be able to >> correlate the device's spectrum requests with other activities linked to >> the serial number). It's not really clear why serial number is collected >> since both this document and RFC 6953 note the protocol does not defend >> against abuse or mis-use of spectrum. >> > > The regulator want to have the ability to black list ranges of serial > numbers, if it > determines that a series was defective. The Databases must use the serial > number > to determine it can return available spectrum. > > > But that makes this a "required by ruleset but not by protocol" issue, > right? > I think this comes back to the question you asked during the drafting of RFC 6953: >> Are there any potential implementers of this protocol (or potential regulatory bodies) that *don't* care about [serial number], manufacturer or model or etc.? There were no solid answers to that question. I suppose the most flexible is to make it optional at the protocol layer and required by ruleset, as you suggest. > > pr > > -- > Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> > <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> > Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 > > -- -vince
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
