Thanks. I think the use-case would be useful to document in the I-D. It provides the proxy model use case for consideration.
Rgds, -Raj On 1/17/12 5:46 PM, "ext Peter Stanforth" <[email protected]> wrote: >Raj >I will look at the existing use cases again and either propose an update >or a new one. Two specific use cases. >One is an "AP" on a train or ferry serving white Space clients with a non >white space backhaul. This I believe is your mobile master. >The simplest scenario I can give is for a multi master solution - say a >collection of construction or farm equipment In the US today these would >all be classified as High Power and would have to individually request >channels however this is very inefficient and allowing some master to >proxy within a predefined area would be preferable. >Regards, >Peter S. > >On TueJan/17/12 Tue Jan 17, 6:32 PM, "[email protected]" ><[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>Hi Peter, >> >>I concur with your comment. Just a quick clarification question about the >>scenario wherein the mobile master is supporting devices that either roam >>within a polygon or cannot accurately locate themselves.. >>First of all I am not sure I understand what these other devices are that >>are relying on the master. Maybe a more complete use case description >>would help. >>We do not have such a scenario in the current document and could consider >>it. >> >>-Raj >> >>On 1/17/12 5:25 PM, "ext Peter Stanforth" <[email protected]> >>wrote: >> >>>I would like to see this be described in a more generic way. I agree >>>with >>>Raj that this is all about providing information for more than a point >>>on >>>a map but there are several possible scenarios for which a query for a >>>"polygon" could be requested. It could be a very long thin polygon if >>>the >>>request is related to a road or railroad or a fairly square polygon if >>>the >>>request is for a venue or even a field. While the use case may be a >>>mobile master it could also be for a master that is supporting devices >>>that either roam within the polygon or cannot accurately locate >>>themselves >>>within the polygon. >>> >>>On TueJan/17/12 Tue Jan 17, 6:17 PM, "[email protected]" >>><[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>Hi Gabor, >>>> >>>>On 1/12/12 8:26 PM, "ext [email protected]" <[email protected]> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>We did not have any discussion on P.9, so I'd like to get comments on >>>>>the >>>>>list about this: >>>>> P.9: A master device MUST be able to query the whitespace >>>>> database for channel availability information for a >>>>> specific expected coverage area around its current >>>>> location. >>>> >>>>This requirement addresses the need associated with a white space >>>>master >>>>device which is mobile. >>>>The master device may query channel availability for a specific contour >>>>or >>>>a set of locations on a certain path for example. >>>>Hence this requirement is primarily about allowing the query to contain >>>>information that goes beyond just a specific lat/long co-ordinate. >>>> >>>>-Raj >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>paws mailing list >>>>[email protected] >>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws >>> >> > _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
