...@ietf.org [mailto:paws-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext
Stephen Farrell
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 4:28 PM
To: IETF-Discussion
Cc: p...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [paws] WG Review: Protocol to Access White Space database (paws)
I think this is a good and timely thing for the IETF
-
From: paws-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:paws-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext
Stephen Farrell
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 4:28 PM
To: IETF-Discussion
Cc: p...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [paws] WG Review: Protocol to Access White Space database (paws)
I think this is a good
; p...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [paws] WG Review: Protocol to Access White Space database (paws)
On Apr 20, 2011, at 3:41 PM, scott.proba...@nokia.com
scott.proba...@nokia.com wrote:
Hi Stephen, All,
I believe the current wording
Robust security mechanisms are required
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 4/19/11 1:47 PM, Paul Lambert wrote:
How does the area that the group is assigned impact the choices of
technology?
I'm an advocate for an efficient solution set for PAWS ... it will be
much like DNS for spectrum in the future and should be viewed as a
core
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:13:13PM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
There is an argument, which you allude to, which would place this WG
in the Internet Area as part of infrastructure. While that does
not resonate with me, I do see that there is some merit in that
perspective.
On the other
?
From: scott.proba...@nokia.com
To: stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [paws] WG Review: Protocol to Access White Space database (paws)
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:41:23 +
CC: p...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Hi Stephen, All,
I believe the current wording
Robust
Building from Bernard's note, it strikes me that if we are going to get
into device identity, we probably need to be communicating with (liaise)
3GPP/3GPP2, because they have very strong views on that topic. (Whether
one agrees or disagrees with their biases, talking to them seems important.)
...@ietf.org [mailto:paws-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Joel M. Halpern
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 10:50 AM
To: i...@ietf.org
Cc: p...@ietf.org; IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: [paws] WG Review: Protocol to Access White Space database
(paws)
I think this working group is a good idea.
My
10:50 AM
To: i...@ietf.org
Cc: p...@ietf.org; IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: [paws] WG Review: Protocol to Access White Space database
(paws)
I think this working group is a good idea.
My inclination would be to place it in the Applications area. It looks
like a nice application
to Access White Space database (paws)
I think this is a good and timely thing for the IETF to do.
One part of this where I think it might be useful to get
some broader input (which may have happened already, I'm not
sure) is the following:
On 19/04/11 17:56, IESG Secretary wrote:
The protocol must
Message-
From: paws-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:paws-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Joel M. Halpern
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 10:50 AM
To: i...@ietf.org
Cc: p...@ietf.org; IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: [paws] WG Review: Protocol to Access White Space database
(paws)
I think
GEOLOC has been a WG that is somewhat on the edge between Apps and RAI. Much of
what geoloc was doing, particularly the location for emergency calling, had
real time issues and the interested people largely lined up with the the other
RAI groups even though geoloc has uses outside anything to
I think this working group is a good idea.
My inclination would be to place it in the Applications area. It looks
like a nice application protocol to me.
There is a reasonable argument for placing it in RAI, as that is where
the relevant GEOLOC work has been done up till now.
Yours,
Joel M.
On 4/19/11 1:47 PM, Paul Lambert wrote:
How does the area that the group is assigned impact the choices of
technology?
I'm an advocate for an efficient solution set for PAWS ... it will be
much like DNS for spectrum in the future and should be viewed as a
core infrastructural component
...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Joel M. Halpern
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 10:50 AM
To: i...@ietf.org
Cc: p...@ietf.org; IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: [paws] WG Review: Protocol to Access White Space database
(paws)
I think this working group is a good idea.
My inclination would be to place
:50 AM
To: i...@ietf.org
Cc: p...@ietf.org; IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: [paws] WG Review: Protocol to Access White Space database
(paws)
I think this working group is a good idea.
My inclination would be to place it in the Applications area. It looks
like a nice application protocol to me
16 matches
Mail list logo
