Subject: Re: [paws] Review of draft-ietf-paws-protocol-12 (by the other APPAD)

From: "Luzango Mfupe" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 14:50:35 +0200

Hi Vince, Folks,
 
It seems the issue of adding the single-resolution bandwidth example
slipped off the cracks some how as it was supposed to be included in the
current draft.
 
Today I am presenting another burning issue relevant to the following
Sections:
 
SECTION 5.5 DeviceOwner
SECTION 6.4 Example Encoding Device Owner vCard
 
Can you please elaborate how the device owner jcard/vCard fragments
should be handled within the JSON registration request message body;
what primitive type(s) should be applied( i.e, String, int etc...).
Apparently there is already a great deal of confusion in this area as
some would thinks the card fragments should just be sent as-it-is in an
array format with the rest of the JSON registration request body
 
To the best of my understanding jcards are supposed to be written as
String primitive types this allows to preserve the formatting when they
are parse/read by the spectrum database/server or any other application
that would wish to extract the contact information in a standardised
format. 
 
Section 5.5 is silent on the definition of vCard data type(s), while
the example provided in Section 6.4 shows the vCard in an array. 
 
May I suggest that we should also explicitly state the data type of
jcard similar to the way we have defined data types for other aspects
throughout the document (e.g., In Section 5.2 Device Descriptor)...In
doing so this will clear any future confusions in the implementation of
our standard.

Kind Regards,
Luzango.

>>> Vincent Chen <[email-masked]> 28/07/2014 18:54 >>>
Hi Luzango, 

Thanks for your suggestions.

On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Luzango Mfupe <[email-masked]>
wrote:

Hi Vince, Folks, 

I am glad to see things are moving to the right direction and hopefully
soon we will finalise this work.

I just found some few not very critical issues that needs some fixing
in in my opinion:

5.11. Spectrum

Here the document talk about the FCC and OFCOM/ETSI spectral profile
presentation requirements (i.e, power levels over a set of frequency
ranges. However, there is only one type of example (OFCOM/ETSI specific)
that is provided throughout the document. I think we need to add another
set of example that is FCC specific. 

Would something like this below suffice for the FCC specific example?

“resolutionBwHz”: 1e5,
“profiles”: [
{
"Hz": 5.18e8,
"Hz": 5.24e8,
“dbm”: 24
] },

Ah. I see. We can add a single resolution-bandwidth example for
completeness.

-- 
This message is subject to the CSIR's copyright terms and conditions,
e-mail legal notice, and implemented Open Document Format (ODF)
standard. 
The full disclaimer details can be found at
http://www.csir.co.za/disclaimer.html. 

This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
MailScanner
( http://www.mailscanner.info/) , 
and is believed to be clean. 

Please consider the environment before printing this email. 

-- 
This message is subject to the CSIR's copyright terms and conditions, e-mail legal notice, and implemented Open Document Format (ODF) standard. 
The full disclaimer details can be found at http://www.csir.co.za/disclaimer.html.

This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, 
and is believed to be clean.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

---

From: Vincent Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 07:42:52 -0700

Hi Luzango,

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:50 AM, Luzango Mfupe <[email-masked]> wrote:

>  Hi Vince, Folks,
>
> It seems the issue of adding the single-resolution bandwidth
> example slipped off the cracks some how as it was supposed to be included
> in the current draft.
>

Please see the first example in Section 5.11, which was added based on your
suggestion.

> Can you please elaborate how the device owner jcard/vCard fragments should
> be handled within the JSON registration request message body; what
> primitive type(s) should be applied( i.e, String, int etc...). Apparently
> there is already a great deal of confusion in this area as some would
> thinks the card fragments should just be sent as-it-is in an array
> format with the rest of the JSON registration request body
>
> String primitive types this allows to preserve the formatting when they are
> parse/read by the spectrum database/server or any other application
> Section 5.5 is silent on the definition of vCard data type(s), while the
> example provided in Section 6.4 shows the vCard in an array.
>
> May I suggest that we should also explicitly state the data type of jcard
> similar to the way we have defined data types for other aspects throughout
> the document (e.g., In Section 5.2 Device Descriptor)...In doing so this
> will clear any future confusions in the implementation of our standard.
>

Actually, Section 6.4 is the jCard representation and was intended to
provide the clarification you're asking for.
Perhaps it needs a better intro sentence?

Since Sections 4 and 5 define new data models for PAWS, we provide a
mapping from those data models to JSON.
On the other hand, we are not redefining vCard and jCard, so it seemed
redundant to repeat their definitions.

-vince

> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Luzango Mfupe <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Vince, Folks,
>>
>> I just found some few not very critical issues that needs some fixing in
>> in my opinion:
>>
>>  *5.11. Spectrum*
>>
>>
>> e-mail legal notice, and implemented Open Document Format (ODF) standard.
> *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>,
> e-mail legal notice, and implemented Open Document Format (ODF) standard.
> *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>,

-- 
-vince

---

From: "Luzango Mfupe" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 17:18:15 +0200

Hi Vince,
 
Thanks for prompt clarifications however, my suggestion is that the
data type of vCard fragments (the device owner part and the device
operator part) as a whole should be explicitly stated in section 5.5.
Here I am not talking about the data types of individual parameters
inside the vCard itself. This will indeed help to preserve the integrity
of card formatting when they are being parsed by different applications
as well as promote uniformity in different PAWS implementations.
 
Kind Regards,
Luzango.

>>> Vincent Chen <[email-masked]> 11/08/2014 16:42 >>>
Hi Luzango,

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:50 AM, Luzango Mfupe <[email-masked]>
wrote:

Hi Vince, Folks,

Please see the first example in Section 5.11, which was added based on
your suggestion.

SECTION 5.5 DeviceOwner

-vince

Kind Regards,
Luzango.

Hi Luzango, 

Hi Vince, Folks, 

5.11. Spectrum

“resolutionBwHz”: 1e5,
“profiles”: [
{
"Hz": 5.18e8,
"Hz": 5.24e8,
“dbm”: 24
] },

-- 
-vince

---

From: Vincent Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 12:51:45 -0700

Hi Luzango,

Please see Section 9.1.2.1 for additional requirements on the DeviceOwner
fields for FCC rules. There's a table that describes the required fields
that must appear for "owner" and "operator".

We did not want to make any restrictions in the core PAWS spec.

Also, RFC 6350 defines what the types are for each field, e.g., "fn" is "a
single text value" (Section 6.2.1) and "adr" is a structured text value of
7 components (Section 6.3.1).

-vince

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Luzango Mfupe <[email-masked]> wrote:

>  Hi Vince,
>
> Thanks for prompt clarifications however, my suggestion is that the data
> type of vCard fragments (the device owner part and the device operator
> part) as a whole should be explicitly stated in section 5.5. Here I am not
> talking about the data types of individual parameters inside the vCard
> itself. This will indeed help to preserve the integrity of card formatting
> when they are being parsed by different applications as well as promote
> uniformity in different PAWS implementations.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Luzango.
>
>> should be handled within the JSON registration request message body; what
>> thinks the card fragments should just be sent as-it-is in an array format
>> with the rest of the JSON registration request body
>> parse/read by the spectrum database/server or any other application that
>> would wish to extract the contact information in a standardised format.
>> throughout the document (e.g., In Section 5.2 Device Descriptor)...In doing
>> so this will clear any future confusions in the implementation of our
>> standard.
>>
>
>>> ranges. However, there is only one type of example (OFCOM/ETSI
>>> specific) that is provided throughout the document. I think we need to add
>>> another set of example that is FCC specific.
>>>
>>>

-- 
-vince