Subject: [paws] Outcome of the discussions in the Berlin F2F

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 16:42:50 +0000

All,

Here's a summary of the discussions we had in the Berlin F2F regarding the solution document:

-          No comments on the currently defined static database discovery. Bootstrapping scenarios should however be kept out of the document and included into the discovery document instead.

-          No comments on the addition of requestType parameter to support ETSI, jcard reference update and prefixing the method names with "spectrum.paws.". If anyone has an issue with these, please send asap a note to the list, otherwise these will go into the new draft version.

-          Slave device terminology: the current slave device terminology is different than the one in RFC6953. Use the terminology from the RFC. Reading through the RFC I noticed that the master device terminology is also different in the two documents, so please use the one from the RFC, and sync all the other applicable terminologies.

-          No objection to the addition of -32700 parse error JSON RPC error code

-          No objections to the name change of the Power spectral density

No conclusion on the Spectrum profile encoding, more discussion on the list is needed. Vince, could you initiate this discussion on the list, by listing the possible encoding options and providing encoding examples. Try to address the questions recorded in the minutes too.

-          No objections to adding support for multiple rulesets in a single response.  If anyone has an issue with this, please send asap a note to the list, otherwise this will go into the new draft version.

-          Wrt the proposal of having the Spectrum_Use_notify be a pure notification, ie it would have an HTTP level response, but that response would not include a body to be interpreted by the client, there was no objection in the room. If anyone has an issue with this, please send asap a note to the list, otherwise this will go into the new draft version.

-          I cannot recall any conclusion on the using of JSON-REST encoding, we need more discussion on the list.

-          Similarly, no conclusion on whether to use JSON Web Signature for non-repudiation. I expects the proponents to continue the discussion on the list.

Gabor