IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Wed, 20 April 2011 09:26 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
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 B01A2E0689; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 02:26:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.472
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.472 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.127, 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 0HN4PpF4H5-8; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 02:26:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EA04E0670; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 02:26:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.124] ((unknown) [62.3.217.253]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <Ta6mrwAB78Xs@rufus.isode.com>; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 10:26:08 +0100
X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS
Message-ID: <4DAEA6A5.6020803@isode.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 10:25:57 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
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> <4DADEBC0.1060200@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4DADEBC0.1060200@stpeter.im>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 09:26:14 -0000

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 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.
>>    
>>
Absolutely not. There are several counter examples in Apps, both past 
and present. (E.g. Lemonade WG was about optimized use of bandwidth for 
IMAP.)

>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.
>
Exactly.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email