Mike,
I very much agree with your goal. Back when we were putting
together the use cases and requirements document, I had recommended separating
the business process data from the modeling of spectrum use. The following
lines did make the document as a guideline but not as a requirement.
The data model SHOULD provide a modular design separating
messaging-specific, administrative-specific, and spectrum-
specific parts into distinct modules.
My vision was that any one of these parts may need to evolve and if the IETF
PAWS were designed to support this modularity that it would very useful beyond
the TV Whitespace. The less specific the protocol was to the TV Whitespace
problem the better. It would be better if data modules were designed to be
specific for the particular spectrum and regulatory domain in which it is
applicable as opposed to confounding the requirements of multiple domains into
a single data model. and then making it integral to the exchanges of the
protocol.
I am involved with another standardization effort through the IEEE DySPAN SC
called Spectrum Consumption Modeling. We are developing an approach that can
be used to model and use of spectrum and then to arbitrate compatibility. It
is very relevant to PAWS since it could open up the concepts of database
managed sharing as envisioned by the PCAST report in the US. Owners of
spectrum can use these models to specify the contours that allow other users to
share. Models can be used for the trading of spectrum. Models can enable
database administrators to manage coexistence. It would be nice if the design
of the IETF PAWS would seek to support the data modularity and separation from
the communications.
John
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael
Head
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 1:45 PM
To: Harasty, Daniel J
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [paws] JSON-RPC vs. JSON-REST
Thanks for the detailed response Dan,
I still believe the idea of separating metadata from data in the protocol and
defining version and capability negotiation in as would be enabled by a RESTful
architecture would yield significant benefits down the road.
However, given that nobody has voiced any support for my proposal, and in the
interest of moving the draft forward, I'll be happy to retract it.
Perhaps we may revisit it when we draft future versions of PAWS.
-- mike
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Harasty, Daniel J
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
In considering Michaels input, these are my thoughts:
* I agree that the current draft's ruleset concept and the number of
optional messages (especially server optional message) does not lead to a
particularly clean "negotiation". In fact, while it looks workable, I'm trying
to implement it now, and it "feels" rather clumsy.
o To remedy this, I was on the verge of proposing a required set of "feature
negotiations" in the INIT_REQ/RESP messages.
o This would also be a good place for servers to initialize any
authentication schemes (if required by the server, and until a standard
certificate-based scheme is specified and adopted).
* Moving this negotiation to the HTTP headers (as Michael proposes) is
- I suspect - workable.
o However, it is my personal opinion that that ties the protocol MORE TIGHTLY
to HTTP.
* Keeping it "in band" - inside the JSON-RPC message itself - allows for
alternate transports: say directly over UDP, or some future wireless-packet
scheme, for example.
o And, as and implementer, I'd rather just deal with the options of the
protocol "in band", in the protocol itself.
* As a server process implementing this protocol, what is the benefit to me to
have to "go looking" for "how to handle this message" by looking a bit in the
message, and a bit in the HTTP headers?
* Yes, interworking of new protocols (or a new version of the "same"
protocol) with old ones is always a bit tricky; it is difficult to know NOW
everything we'll need in the future to make interworking work smoothly.
o However, we already have a perfectly good "escape hatch" in our current
JSON-RPC-oriented approach: at anytime in the future, and new PAWS version can
define a new method outside of the scope of PAWS 1.0.
* To my reading, the old PAWS server would reply with a JSON-RCP "method not
implemented"... and thus interworking was handled smoothly. (It would be the
client's prerogative to "step back" through older protocols that it does
implement.)
o Also, in some cases, new features/extensions could be "added" to PAWS (and
safely interwork old and new versions) due to the fact that "ignoring
unexpected fields" is REQUIRED.
o While I think Michael's proposal would offer a different way to handle
version negotiation, I don't see that it is "better"... just "a different way".
* I agree that the ability to be "transparently redirected" to a peer
("federated") server is a good idea...
o ... but, to my reading, that is already accommodated by the Section 7 text
regarding the handling of HTTP Redirects.
* As for additional "mappings" from browsers: nothing in our current
spec precludes a Database from replying one way to PAWS messages (in HTTP POST
encoded as JSON-RPC), and to HTTP GETs another way.
o In fact, we're already implementing that, too.
I have other minor comments (maybe even quibbles) with some of Michaels
statements... but there is no particular need to go in to all of that now.
I propose the bigger questions is one of general direction. At this point in
time:
1. If the rest of the group finds the current "feature/ruleset
negotiation" scheme is just fine, then perhaps no action is needed.
2. If others feel that it is somewhat clunky, do we attempt to address it
by:
o "Fixing it" in the current "style": introduce a more clear - possibly
REQUIRED - "negotiation" to the existing JSON-RPC.
o Changing direction now to Michaels proposed use of HTTP headers.
o Pursuing BOTH to a sufficient degree of clarity until we can then pick
between them.
Thoughts?
Dan Harasty
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of
Michael Head
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 11:07 AM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [paws] JSON-RPC vs. JSON-REST
I suppose this will be controversial, but I'm finding that relying on JSON-RPC
is driving unnecessary coupling among the device, database and regulatory
authority. What I mean by this is that each device/client has to know (or
detect) something about the database/server it's talking to as well as the
ruleset under which the server will operate.
For example, it is allowed for a device to be implemented so that it only makes
the spectrum.paws.GetSpectrum RPC. However, in order for this to work, the
database it is configured to communicate with must be built to allow for this:
it won't work with a database that requires spectrum.paws.Init and
spectrum.paws.Register to be called. The device can only detect that the
database requires these calls by inspecting the error returned from the
GetSpectrum RPC. Furthermore, registration rules (including which fields are
required for proper registration) may be governed by the regulatory authority.
The device needs to know these details a priori (or possibly detect them by
attempting a request and inspecting error results in an underspecified manner).
Much of those details are determined by the governing ruleset ID, and its
precise meaning must be baked into both the database and the device, and they
must assume that their respective semantics will agree.
Some of these issues could be solved by reducing the amount of optionality (and
perhaps some of the optional calls) and requiring a standard sequence of
operations. This may work, but I feel the coupling would still be high.
Protocol version upgrades (and version negotiation) won't be particularly
graceful: the client might send a version 1.1 message to the database, and even
though the client might also support 1.0, it would get an error response if the
database didn't support 1.0.
As a secondary issue, it's less natural to expose the service via the web.
JSON-RPC is really only built to allow for programmatic clients.
So.... I'd rather see a RESTful API that develops application state through the
use of hyperlinked, content-typed message bodies. I suppose REST-vs-RPC has
been discussed quite a bit in general, but I haven't seen it brought here.
A sketch of the protocol might look like this (I'm not a RESTful API expert, so
I'm sure it could be better):
Database publishes a single URL entry point: http://example.com/paws
Device POSTs an application/vnd.paws.init.request-v1+json message to
http://example.com/paws with header
Accept:
application/vnd.paws.init.response-v2+json;application/vnd.paws.init.response-v1+json
Database (let's say it only supports v1) responds with a
application/paws.init.response-v1+json message which includes the details in
4.2.2 of the draft -- with, say a cache-control: max-age=86400 header -- but
contain an additional field: spectrumResource: {acceptable-content-type:
application/paws.getspectrum.request-v1+json; required-fields: device/fccId;
uri: http://example.com/paws/available-spectrum}
Device POSTs application/paws.getspectrum.request-v1+json a message with the
FCC id to http://example.com/paws/available-spectrum and header
Accept: application/vnd.paws.notifyuse-v1+json
Database response with an application/paws.getspectrum.response-v1+json
response containing the details specified in 4.4.2 with an additional field (if
it is required for spectrum use to be notified by the device):
notifyUseToResource {acceptable-content-type:
application/vnd.paws.notifyuse-v1+json, uri:
http://example.com/paws/used-spectrum}.
Device POSTs the selected frequency ranges to the URL and is done.
In this way, the device only needs to know how to negotiate and handle the
content types and be configured with the initial URL of the service. Some
interesting benefits:
* The device can connect to the database to ask about any location and -- if
the original database doesn't support a given country -- be transparently
directed in the response to another database to file the get spectrum request.
It's feasible for any database to federate with other databases and provide
seamless database discovery anywhere whitespace databases are in use (though
this doesn't speak to the protocol by which the databases would discover each
other)
* At each POST, the device declares the response version it can handle which
indicates to the server that it can safely use that version and assume it will
be handled by the client according to that particular version of the spec.
Further, it allows the client and server to easily agree on an upgraded version
using the HTTP headers alone without needing to design such a feature into the
protocol itself.
* There's a very natural mapping to a web-browser accessible site for
viewing/querying the database contents: visit http://example.com/paws in a
browser, and it sends back a page with a map allowing the user to pick a
location. URLs like
http://example.com/paws/available-spectrum/latitude=45N/longitude=75W might be
bookmarked for repeated viewings for a particular location.
* The initialization response could be augmented with ruleset definitions that
could be cachable, GETtable resources that (perhaps in a future version of the
spec when the breadth of rulesets is better known) allow devices to seamlessly
upgrade their rulesets from the database.
--
----------------------------------
Michael R Head <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
http://www.cs.binghamton.edu/~mike
+1-201-BLISTER
_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
--
----------------------------------
Michael R Head <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
http://www.cs.binghamton.edu/~mike
+1-201-BLISTER
_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
