Subject: [paws] PAWS BOF minutes

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 08:56:10 +0000

Below are the minutes of the bof taken by Raj. Let me know if you have additions/modifications. Otherwise I'll upload it to datatracker.
Thanks Raj for the minutes.
-Gabor

============================================================
	
Gabor introducing the PAWS BoF.
Background: Two I-Ds have been posted.

Minutes taker: Basavaraj Patil
Jabber scribes : Les Kuku (?)

Gabor: How many people have read and understood the PS I-D?
Quite many people raised their hands. They have read and understood
the PS I-D.

Basavaraj presents "Introduction to white space"
------------------------------------------------
No questions

Brian's presentation:
---------------------

Dirk K.: Do you intend to use other distribution mechanisms?
Brian: It is location dependent. You cannot use broadcast mechanisms.

Subir: Is the type (On slide handling Mac/Phy independence) tied to
       every nation? 
Brian: Not sure. There is some registry that will likely specify
       it. At least in some nation the contour defines the
       type. Nation specific type is not clear

Jeff Thompson: Is the channel available for exclusive use after
     querying and getting a response?
Brian: No.The channel is available as a shared resource. However long
       term goals in this area could consider such options.

TBD: 
Brian: 802.11af comes up with an air interface and is applicable in
       many countries then it would work everywhere. Generally speaking the
       goal of the IETF is to not require that kind of country and device tie
       in. 

TBD: HTTP based querying may be complex for this kind of solution.
Brian: Write some text and send to the list.

Teco Boot: Decision making can also be on the client. Interference
     knowledge may be local and can be sent to the server. This could be
     part of the query semantics.
Brian: The DB has knowledge of protected entities. 

Warren Kumari: Confused by the concept of channel. 
Brian: Protocol has to have a much more general notion and it could be
       a frequency range.

Serge M.: Does the protocol write or only read to the database?
Brian: It is read/query only
Basavaraj: As a clarification, there is a requirement to perform
	   authentication in some cases in which case you could
	   consider that to be a sort of write operation
Brian: Yes. We may need to work on some authentication aspects as an
       optional component

Gabor's slide on "Related IEEE work"
------------------------------------
- There is work in 802.11af and also 802.22 has specified a new radio
  technology 
- There is also co-existence work in .19 where the database work is
  relevant

Charter discussion
-------------------

Key points about the charter and the work to be done

- The proposal is to work on these as standards track deliverables

Alissa Cooper: Privacy considerations are good to have. Suggestion to
       improve the text about this in the charter
Brian: "Robust privacy and security mechanisms" should be used in the
       charter

Yiu Lee: User authentication will be there?
Brian: When we get to the requirements there will be a need for some
identification. Because in some cases the DB access may not be free.
If you think it should be part of the charter we can add it as well. 

Tim Polk: In addition to privacy and security mechanisms, there are
significant security issues. You may want to address the security
threats that need to be addressed.
Brian: Is it charter material?
Tim: Believes that it is charter material. Does not need to be a 4
page charter. Just wants to point out that charter needs to ensure it
considers it.

Philip Eardley: Charter looks good. Regarding the data model, how do
you address the country specific aspects
Brian: Thinking very carefully about how the XML data model is
specified to ensure that it can be extended as new rules and
regulations become available. Most of that is not really an issue.

Dan Harkins: Is the DB dynamic? Do you get the same response?
Brian: In some countries there is a schedule. Answer to question: You
may get different results at different times.

Subir: Refering to Scotts question about registration. Will the
proposed WG do that part as well
Brian: We ought to. The US requires it. The general notion of
registration should be optional and part of the charter. 

Juan Carlos - In ETSI there is RRA group. Is it worth mentioning it in
the list as someone we want to liaison with
Brian: Sure. 

Jan someone(Jabber): Can you select a channel before transmission?
Brian: Thinks there is potential for such work in the future would be
to not charter that activity initially

Yiu lee: Use case regarding region. Is there a single database per
region 
Brian: There could be multiple databases
Yiu: Do the databases have to be synchronized
Brian: Yes. 
Yiu: How would this be done?
Brian: Would like to keep this out of the initial charter. There is
less need for the IETF to standardize them. You dont need anything
standardized. It would be nice to have but not essential.

Jeff Thompson: Is there any anticipation of making the query per
region... Making it mobile basically?
Brian: There is no work among the regulators to do this. You are
getting ahead of the technology.

Teco Boot: In this query, it is not single point that has a catalyst
of channels. You have to define the area you are in and include
transmission power and other parameters
Brian: Do we want to do this right away or maybe as an extension? If
it is simple we could do it. But otherwise postpone it. 
Teco: To get permission to transmit at a location the device needs to
query first.
Brian: It is a highly regulated area 
Teco: Would prefer to have a rich protocol

Jeff Thompson: W.r.t the size of the space owned, the query is for a
point and not the larger space?
Brian: The protocol should not restrict it to a point. It should be
broader (circle, polygons etc.)

Questions to BoF
================

Question 1: Is there interest in taking up the work to specify the
	    messaging interface between devices and databases? 

Hums: 
Yes: Many
No: None

Question 2: Is the IETF the right place to do this?
Hums:
Yes: Many (Louder than the response for Q1)
No: None

Qusetion 3: How many of you would be willing to work on various I-Ds and
	    helping with reviews?  
Work on I-Ds:
Yes: 11 hands

Willing to review: 
More than 11 + 2 in Jabber

Q4: Should a WG be formed
Hums:
Yes: Even more than response for Q2

And we are done.