At 05:24 01-02-2013, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Protocol to Access WS database
WG (paws) to consider the following document:
- 'Protocol to Access White Space (PAWS) Database: Use Cases and
Requirements'
<draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-12.txt> as Informational
RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2013-02-15. Exceptionally, comments
may be
I read the draft. I am okay with whatever the working group decides.
In Section 1.1:
"Academia and Industry have studied multiple cognitive radio [2]
mechanisms for use in such a scenario."
The reference seemed odd. It took me some time to understand that it
was put in to address a comment. However, the first (external)
reference that defines that is a 404.
There are two occurrences of the RFC 2119 boilerplate in the draft.
In Section 3.1:
"Before the master device can transmit in white space spectrum, it MUST
obtain the address of a trusted white space database, which it will
query for available white space spectrum."
Why is this a MUST?
In Section 4.2:
"A simplified operation scenario of offloading content, such as video
stream, from the a metered Internet connection to the a WS connection
consists of the following steps:"
What is a metered Internet connection?
In Section 4.4:
"To set up a replacement network, spectrum needs to be quickly
cleared and reallocated to the crisis response organization."
Is that what P.15 is about? BTW, O.17 uses a "should" for this.
In Section 6.2:
"P.3 The protocol MUST provide the ability for the database to
authenticate the master device."
"P.5 The messages sent by the master device to the database and the
messages sent by the database to the master device MUST support
integrity protection."
"P.6 The protocol MUST provide the capability for messages sent by
the master device and database to be encrypted."
This sounds like the usual IETF security stuff.
"P.8 The protocol MUST support a registration acknowledgement
indicating the success of failure of the master device
registration."
The "success of failure" might need fixing.
"P.14 The protocol MUST support a validation response from the
database to the master to indicate if the slave device is
validated by the WSDB. The validation response MUST indicate the
success or failure of the validation request."
What is WSDB?
In Section 6.3:
"O.1 The database and the master device MUST be connected to the
Internet."
What is the Internet?
"O.2 A master device MUST be able to determine its location including
uncertainty and confidence level."
Does the working group plan to build its deliverables upon the GEOPRIV work?
I found the draft easy to read. The draft goes into extraneous
details in some parts. As an off-topic comment I see that the
working group had the usual JSON versus XML discussion [1]. :-) I
understood the concept of white spaces as discussed in the draft. If
I understood correctly the usage of database is related to the data
model in Section 6. On seeing Figure 7 it seemed to me that what was
missing is an architecture document which provides a high-level view
of how all this is supposed to work. I am not suggesting a
reorganization of the draft as it may end up as too much work. The
draft attempts to convince the reader about the importance of white
spaces and its use cases. It's basically about database queries.
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg07261.html