oops sorry I was about to say what Raj just said…ditto. Nancy On Feb 2, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Nancy Bravin wrote:
> Guys, > > I think given the Global community that will be using this Protocol, > > On Feb 2, 2012, at 12:48 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > >> >> Pretty good overall. I'll keep on my usual track since I seem >> stuck on it here;-) >> >> On 02/02/2012 08:37 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> Threat 6: Third party tracking of white space device location >>> >>> >>> A master device needs to provide its location to the white >>> space database in order to obtain the channel availability >>> information at that location. Such location information can be >>> gleaned by an eavesdropper. A master device may prefer to keep >>> the location information secret. Hence the protocol should >>> provide a means to protect the location information and prevent >>> tracking of locations associated with a white space database. >> >> What's wrong with not wanting the DB to track me (as a master >> device)? Could be that current known regulators don't like >> anonymous masters, but that may change. (So I think 3rd party >> here is wrong.) >> >> Why is it only location tracking that's of concern? Why is >> exposing identity not an equal deal? Same logic as above. >> >> >> S. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paws mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws > _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
