Hi Scott, I'm fine with your proposal. Make section 4 multi-level and reword "use case" in the two protocol service sections?
Thanks, Teco Op 27 jan. 2012, om 15:38 heeft <[email protected]> <[email protected]> het volgende geschreven: > 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
