>From the lack of response to my email last week, I assume folks just don't >understand why I am recommending the division of the data model. Please let >me explain in a different way.
Last December, at the SDR Forum, Julius Knapp, the Director of the OET at the FCC, hosted a panel attended by five of the ten database administrators. In that panel, he asked the panelists what was in it for them. Several responded that they hoped they could provide a service to those looking for spectrum and to help broker these arrangements. This is not the model of TVWS. At present, the urgency of the paws effort surrounds a narrower goal of enabling TVWS devices to obtain channels they can use. I do not want to make any suggestions that would prevent us from achieving this goal first. I do want to make an effort to prevent what is done from becoming an impediment to a bigger role for whitespace database administration in the future, one of managing coexistence and brokering spectrum reuse. In all methods of using a database where a device negotiates with a database, the types of messages that will be used are likely to be similar: - This is who I am, what rules should I apply in negotiating for spectrum? - This is the spectrum I am looking for, what do you have? - This is the spectrum that meets your query criteria. - etc. The methods developed for trust are also reusable. This is the reason for having a portion of the data model remain the same for all expansions. The differences between a TVWS scenario and a brokering scenario are likely to be additional messaging and different data, both for the business of brokering and for defining the spectrum authorization. For example, in the brokering use case there needs to be a spectrum data model that allows a primary spectrum user to release spectrum into the market, (e.g., provide their contours ) and to specify the terms of use. My concern is that if the data model of TVWS comingles the data of messaging, administration, and spectrum; that this sort of expansion of paws would require increasing the size of the data model and would make expanding its capability more difficult both because of the impact of this expansion on legacy uses and because of the confusion of using large schemas that have similar but different data elements. My solution is to divide the data model into three parts. The data document of messages would use the namespace of three schemas. In the TVWS edition, this would also allow different administrative and spectrum schemas for different regulatory domains. In end, the data for TVWS management would not be any different, it would just be defined in three schemas In the initial exchanges between a device and a database, there would be agreement on which schemas to use. This is equivalent to resolving the regulatory domain. The messaging that follows would be the exact same, with the exact same data as the messaging if a comingled data model were used. If the division is done well, then, in the long term, others can create schemas for administration and spectrum definition that meets their business needs without having to do so through paws. They would be able expand the way the paws protocol is used without having to revise paws. I hope this better explains my intent. It would also be helpful to understand why anyone thinks this should not be done. John _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
