Scott Regarding time constraints for message delivery from the database, Ofcom has moved away from specifying a time limit for a database to respond to a request, on the basis that if it is a first request then the master will not transmit if it fails to receive a response, and if it is a 'revalidation' request and the master receives no response, the master will cease transmitting anyway when the time validity timer expires. I think in principle we need not specify a time limit for delivery of pushed information; if received, the master must act on it, but if not received, it will continue to transmit until its validity timer expires. I think that is reasonable. In practice the risk of non-delivery is tiny, as is the likelihood of invoking the kill switch in the first place as a method of solving interference issues (even in an emergency).
Regards Andy -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: 19 January 2012 19:42 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [paws] next steps for the wg Hi All, I believe it is relevant to look at Ofcom's Implementing Geolocation Summary of consultation responses and next steps. Paragraph 3.42 states: > >Ofcom retains control over the performance of the algorithms used in >the databases and will update them if required to manage interference. >A kill switch is a useful reactive tool and we believe that it should >form a core part of the protocol which describes the information >exchange between WSDs and the database. > Following the notion that a kill switch should form a core part of the protocol, this could be included in a very basic use case like "Hotspot: urban internet connectivity service". I can volunteer to make this addition in the use case. Regarding the requirement we could say the database must be able to deliver updated channel information to any registered master device. We have not specified elsewhere any time constraints on message delivery, I wonder if this is needed in this case either. Kind Regards, Scott -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Joel M. Halpern Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 11:12 AM To: Rosen, Brian Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [paws] next steps for the wg Thanks Brian. That works much better for me. Yours, Joel On 1/19/2012 9:08 AM, Rosen, Brian wrote: > At this stage, we should say that we have a requirement to change > availability of spectrum on a short notice, we need a use case that would > motivate some decision on what "short" means, and we should not worry about > which mechanism we should choose to achieve it. > > Push, fast poll, and notice broadcast (i.e. a single bit sent to all clients > telling them to "phone home" soon) are all reasonable mechanisms to meet the > requirements. > > Brian > _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
