Re: [paws] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-paws-protocol-15.txt

[Vincent Chen <[e-mail]>]

All,

I've taken a stab at addressing all the DISCUSS points and comments.
Hopefully this moves us closer.

Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-paws-protocol-15


Summary of updates:
   o  Clarified why spectrum-notify is "informational"

   o  Clarified that device registration is typically only required for
      fixed devices

   o  Global statement about timestamp format and must be UTC

   o  Global statement about MISSING error returned, whether it's
      required by PAWS or ruleset

   o  Clarified UNSUPPORTED error

   o  Mandate that Database-change must be included in all responses a
      minimum of 2 weeks before change

   o  Clarified that preconfigured values are ruleset specific
      (INIT_RESP)

   o  Added reference to FCC ruleset for registration of Fixed Devices

   o  Make deviceOwner and serialNumber optional at PAWS level and
      required on a per-ruleset basis

   o  Update description for "location" to be where device intends to
      operate, rather than "current location"

   o  For REGISTRATION_RESP, add clarification that when it is returned,
      it will have at least one RulesetInfo.  Otherwise, it's an
      UNSUPPORTED error.

   o  Clarified that, when a Master Device asks for spectrum on behalf
      of a Slave Device, there are 2 locations in the message and
      changed masterDeviceLocation to be required

   o  Indicate that power levels are typically EIRP (as opposed to
      conducted power to the antenna)

   o  Added description for a "schedule"

   o  Add intro to DEVICE_VALID_REQ

   o  TLS: Follow best practices to improve security and interop.
      Reference draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp

   o  TLS: Use OCSP for better performance; RFC6960

   o  TLS: When using client auth, Database determines acceptable root
      CAs

   o  Extensibility: Add statement that no extensions that return device
      information will not be accepted

   o  Clarify IANA instructions for the Ruleset ID Registry

   o  Security: Acknowledge that unauthorized access to device
      registration, other sensitive device info is a risk, and indicate
      that privacy policies must be published and implement to control
      access.

Thanks!

-vince


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:59 AM, <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> A new version (-15) has been submitted for draft-ietf-paws-protocol:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-paws-protocol-15.txt
>
> Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
>
>
> The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-paws-protocol/
>
> Diff from previous version:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-paws-protocol-15
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> IETF Secretariat.
>
>


-- 
-vince