Subject: [paws] New PAWS draft uploaded

From: Vincent Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 19:10:10 -0700

All,

I've uploaded a new draft of PAWS that I believe addresses all the points
raised by
the ADs, Gen-ART, and at the F2F.

The major change is the simplification of Section 6 for JSON encoding,
reducing it to a number of examples.

Summary of changes:

   o  Define primitive types in Section 4, specifying UTF-8 for strings
      and remove UTF-8 references elsewhere.

   o  Replace or rephrase "parameter" when reference is to higher-level
      structure.

   o  Replace "MUST" with non-2119 language (maximum length is xxx
      octets.

   o  Rephrase statements that reflected regulatory, not PAWS
      requirements (e.g., deletion of "MUST" or "MAY" and rephrasing as
      a regulatory requirement).

   o  Replace "Paws protocol (redundant) to "PAWS"

   o  Change "geo-location" to "geolocation"

   o  General references to "Database" changed to "database."

   o  Simplify Section 6 by showing several JSON encoding examples.

   o  Change "Device" to "device"

   o  Moved treatment of List Server as discovery mechanism to
      Appendix and added JSON-encoded DB List Server response example.

Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-paws-protocol-13

Please take a look and comment. Thanks!
-- 
-vince

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:20:04 -0400

> raised by the ADs, Gen-ART, and at the F2F.

Vince, thanks so much for the quick work on getting this done.
Essentially all my points have been addressed.  I have this ready to
post as a non-blocking, minor comment whenever Pete creates a ballot
for the document:

----------------------------------------
A small point in the header:
"iconectiv (formerly Telcordia Interconnection Solutions)"
I think it's fine to put that in the "Authors' Addresses" section, but
the header should just say "iconectiv".  I realize that takes a little
inconvenient massaging of the XML, and probably isn't worth the
trouble for the I-D.  Might just put that in an RFC Editor note....

-- Section 2.2 --
As a very minor thing, I suggest this (adding URIs for the agencies,
and specifying "U.S." for FCC):

OLD
   ETSI:  European Telecommunications Standards Institute
   FCC:  Federal Communications Commission
NEW
   ETSI:  European Telecommunications Standards Institute
         <http://etsi.org>
   FCC:  The U.S. Federal Communications Commission
         <http://fcc.gov>
END

-- Section 6 --
As I had concerns in version -12 with the use of JSON schema language
that hasn't been fully specified and is in an expired I-D, I should
explicitly say that I'm happy with what Section 6 and its subsections
look like in version -13.  Thanks for the fix!
----------------------------------------

Barry

---

From: Vincent Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 12:17:30 -0700

Barry,

Thanks for the review!

> post as a non-blocking, minor comment whenever Pete creates a ballot

Done. Added an RFC Editor note.

>    FCC:  The U.S. Federal Communications Commission
Done. Thanks for the reminder on adding "U.S.".

> look like in version -13.  Thanks for the fix!

I'm glad it was rather painless :)

Given that I want to update the IANA language some more, I have another
draft ready to upload (incorporating these changes). Should I do that now?

-- 
-vince

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:31:07 -0400

> draft ready to upload (incorporating these changes). Should I do that now?

I think you should, unless Pete has other ideas for some reason.  As I
always say: revisions are cheap.

b

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:33:13 -0500

> always say: revisions are cheap.

Yeah, please go right ahead. Once I hear from Robert, I will likely send 
this out for a second Last Call, given the extent of the changes, so 
having the latest-and-greatest in there would be good.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: Vincent Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 12:49:00 -0700

Thanks. Draft 14 uploaded.

-vince

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> this out for a second Last Call, given the extent of the changes, so having
> the latest-and-greatest in there would be good.
>
> pr
>
> --

-- 
-vince

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 16:55:28 -0500

This all looks very good to me.

I've reviewed the diff between 12 and 14, and read through 14.
Thanks for the very nice work on simplifying section 6, Vincent!

This isn't worth holding the document up in any way, but as it's going 
through the rest of it's processing
consider, in 6.1,  saying that the id should be generated uniquely 
enough to allow the use of JSON-RPC batch?

RjS

On 7/31/14, 2:33 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> Yeah, please go right ahead. Once I hear from Robert, I will likely 
> send this out for a second Last Call, given the extent of the changes, 
> so having the latest-and-greatest in there would be good.
>
> pr
>

---

From: Vincent Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 21:47:15 -0700

Robert,

Thanks for the review.

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Robert Sparks <[email-masked]> wrote:

> consider, in 6.1,  saying that the id should be generated uniquely enough
> to allow the use of JSON-RPC batch?
>

Hmmm...I'm now not sure we should support JSON-RPC batching, since batching
is built into some of the
PAWS methods:

 - AVAIL_SPECTRUM_BATCH_REQ
 - DEV_VALID_REQ

It might get confusing to support two different mechanisms.

-- 
-vince