Re: [paws] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-paws-protocol-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Vincent Chen <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>  On 8/21/14 2:59 AM, Vincent Chen wrote:
>
> = Section 5.2 =
>> I'd like to discuss why the device serial number needs to be included in
>> the device descriptor, rather than some (perhaps persistent) randomly
>> generated device identifier that is used only in the context of this
>> protocol (which would better protect the privacy of the user of the
>> device, since the whitespaces database administrator wouldn't be able to
>> correlate the device's spectrum requests with other activities linked to
>> the serial number). It's not really clear why serial number is collected
>> since both this document and RFC 6953 note the protocol does not defend
>> against abuse or mis-use of spectrum.
>>
>
>  The regulator want to have the ability to black list ranges of serial
> numbers, if it
> determines that a series was defective. The Databases must use the serial
> number
> to determine it can return available spectrum.
>
>
> But that makes this a "required by ruleset but not by protocol" issue,
> right?
>

I think this comes back to the question you asked during the drafting of
RFC 6953:

>> Are there any potential implementers of this protocol (or potential
regulatory bodies) that *don't* care about [serial number], manufacturer or
model or etc.?

There were no solid answers to that question. I suppose the most flexible
is to make it optional at the
protocol layer and required by ruleset, as you suggest.


>
> pr
>
> --
> Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]
>
>


-- 
-vince