IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [paws] WG Review: Protocol to Access White Space database (paws)

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Tue, 19 April 2011 20:08 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 489FFE081C; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:08:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.581
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HE8oBbv6LOnm; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13521E0811; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-185.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-185.cisco.com [64.101.72.185]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7403F40D6A; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:12:08 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4DADEBC0.1060200@stpeter.im>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:08:32 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Lambert <paul@marvell.com>
Subject: Re: [paws] WG Review: Protocol to Access White Space database (paws)
References: <20110419165634.CD24CE07CF@ietfc.amsl.com> <4DADCB52.1020309@joelhalpern.com> <7BAC95F5A7E67643AAFB2C31BEE662D01406AC564E@SC-VEXCH2.marvell.com>
In-Reply-To: <7BAC95F5A7E67643AAFB2C31BEE662D01406AC564E@SC-VEXCH2.marvell.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="------------ms020801000302000909070604"
Cc: "paws@ietf.org" <paws@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:08:36 -0000

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 that needs careful design.  There are
> good reasons that routing protocols don't use XML.
> 
> Applications now days tend to go for the simple, quick to make a web
> application solutions using XML or the like ...  My concern is that
> "Applications" imply that efficiency does not matter.

A quick look at the specifications for the CORE WG in the Applications
Area will show you that we're able to produce protocols that are quite
slim on the wire.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email