Hi Teco, I agree with you that "TVWS database discovery" and "Device registration with trusted Database" are aspects of the protocol, perhaps services, rather than use cases. However since these topics are describing capability required from the protocol, placing them in a section titled "Problem Statement" could also be unclear.
If we change the title of section 4 to "Use cases and protocol services" would this be acceptable? Kind Regards, Scott On 1/27/12 3:13 AM, "ext Teco Boot" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi Scott, > >IMHO the first 2 use cases "TVWS database discovery" and "Device >registration with trusted Database" are not real use cases, but >aspects of the protocol. Text says "prerequisite to other use cases". > >They could move to the Problem Statement section and combine >text. There is already a "5.2. Database discovery". The other section >would need a "5.x Device registration with trusted Database". > >Teco > > > >Op 27 jan. 2012, om 00:42 heeft <[email protected]> ><[email protected]> het volgende geschreven: > >> Hi, >> >> Revision 2 of the PS, Use cases and requirements I-D has been posted. >>Please see: >> >>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases >>-rqmts-02.txt >> >> This version only includes changes requested by the co-chair in his >>email of January 12 >>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/paws/current/msg00516.html >> Specifically: >> " >>> 2. requirements. In the last f2f >>> we agreed to modify requirement D.1 to include the suggestions from >>>slide 7-10 ofhttp://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-2.pdf and >>>merge with D.6 and D.9 >>> slides 7&8 of http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-1.pdf >>>also contain suggestions on how to revise this requirement. >>> Agreed to revise requirement D.2 as suggested in slide 11 of >>>http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-2.pdfand slide 9 of >>>http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-1.pdf >>> We seem to have agreed with the reformulation suggested to D.3 in >>>slide 12 ofhttp://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-2.pdf, but we >>>did not agree on the format the location would be represented in. The >>>data format part is still open, but as this piece does not really >>>belong to requirements but rather the data model spec, we are not in a >>>hurry to decide it. >>> Delete d.4 >>> D.5: augment with lower/upper frequencies and time of availability, as >>>suggested on slide 10 >>>ofhttp://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-1.pdf >>> D.6: change power to eirp, as suggested in slide 13 of >>>http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-2.pdf. >>> D.7: change to single and multiple locations. Clarify that in case of >>>multiple locations the channel availability for each location should be >>>sent by the db. >>> D.8: delete >> " >>> >> And >> " >>> Operational requirements: slides 22-24 of >>>http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-2.pdf contain >>>suggestions on rewording, I propose the editor considers them. >> " >> >> >> Regards, >> Scott & 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
