Related suggestion: Assuming we have a discovery protocol which can
return a URI, the protocol semantics should be such that the URI can be
the final DB URI, or another intermediary in the process. Thus, the
protocol should not lock in that there can be only 0 or 1 intermediaries
in the resolution, but should allow several. (We already have suggested
cases where at least two are needed, one to determine where you are by
asking your vendor, and one to determine who you can talk to by asking
your local regulator.)
Yours,
Joel
On 8/9/2012 8:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Folks,
During the Vancouver F2F discussions we had some good discussions, but
no agreement on whether an initialization message, as proposed in
draft-das is necessary or not.
You may check the minutes to see what was said at the mike:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/minutes/minutes-84-paws
People spoke mostly in favor, but there were people who also said that
this message is redundant with registration message.
Question#1: need for an initialization message
Unfortunately we did not have time to discuss the DB discovery aspect,
and that may be related to this topic. The only DB discovery document
available currently,
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-probasco-paws-discovery-01.txt, proposes,
that the master device contacts a pre-provisioned discovery server and
provides its location, and in return the discovery server returns the
URI of the DB for that regulatory domain. At this point, the master
device knows which DB to contact, but it does not necessarily know what
regulatory domain that DB belongs to. Thus, it doesn’t know what are the
operating rules, whether it has to authenticate, or register, etc.
Thus, it seems logical to me that the master device first queries the DB
to find out the regulatory domain. We even have such a requirement in
the requirement draft, requirement:
“P.3: The protocol MUST support determination of
regulatory domain governing its current location.”
The information about the regulatory domain may be cached, and the
master device may not need to place that query every time, but this
message exchange may be necessary in certain cases. Any comments to this
point?
Question#2
Then, it is a slightly separate issue, if this message exchange has to
take place, then what additional information the DB returns. draft-das
proposes that regulatory domain specific information be returned to the
master device.
Question#3
Yet another separate point is that draft-das proposes to use this
initialization message also to initiate client authentication (putting
shared secret vs cert issue aside for the time being). In cases when the
master device does not know the regulatory domain it is in, then it does
not know whether authentication is required in that regulatory domain or
not; so why would initiate authentication then? Similar comment applies
to draft-wei, where it is proposed that after DB discovery the master
device authenticates at TLS layer and performs registration; how does it
know that it has to authenticate and register, if it doesn’t know the
regulatory domain?
In my opinion (chair hat off), the sequence of events should be sg like
this:
1.DB discovery (may be skipped if cached information available)
2.Regulatory domain query (may be skipped if cached information available)
3.Authentication (if required)
4.Registration (if required)
5.Channel availability query (may be combined with registration?)
Comments are welcome and expected.
-Gabor
_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
