Dear All, I am fine with this version, and happy to see so much interaction that made it possible to come to this consensus. Thanks, Sincerely, Nancy
On Feb 2, 2012, at 1:19 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > According to my unofficial tracking, the latest progress is recorded here > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/paws/current/msg00644.html > where the proposal is to update the terms White Space and White Space > device, a suggestion to align the Introduction with Andy's proposed > corrections to the Abstract > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/paws/current/msg00576.html > > Assuming no further comments on the reflector, I plan to implement the above > for version-03. > > Kind Regards, > Scott > > From: Gabor Bajko <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 18:25:19 +0000 > To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [paws] Discussion on 'license-exempt' vs 'unlicensed' > > > I am wondering where we are with the discussion on this topic. > > Gerald clarified in one of the previous mails what the qualifiers > ‘license-exempt’ and ‘unlicensed’ mean when they are attached to a frequency > band, an operation or a device. > Scanning through the document, I found 2 instances of unlicensed not attached > to anything, and one instance of ‘license-exempt’ spectrum. > > Since IETF historically has not dealt much with operation in certain > frequency bands, it would be good to define these terminologies and adjust > the text in the draft accordingly. > > Now, the question is if these terminologies can be used to also qualify a WS > device, WS spectrum and/or WS operation. If not, we may need additional > definitions for these, I think this is what Paul suggested down below. > > - Gabor > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext > Paul Lambert > Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:51 AM > To: M.K.Sajeev; Rosen, Brian; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [paws] Discussion on 'license-exempt' vs 'unlicensed' > > > Lightly licensed and license exempt (or unlicensed in FCC vernacular) have > prior – that was why I was proposing that we should include a definition for > the geolocation based white space access that paws is supporting as a new > definition. > > Paul > > > Paul A. Lambert | Marvell Semiconductor | +1-650-787-9141 > > From: M.K.Sajeev [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 8:12 AM > To: Paul Lambert; Rosen, Brian; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [paws] Discussion on 'license-exempt' vs 'unlicensed' > > Hi, > > A bit confused seeing the 'unlicensed' band discussion here. Will a white > space database be maintaining details of devices/channel allocations of > unlicensed band operation of devices? (is it really feasible, as unlicensed > band can be used by any device without any specific channels allocation, > etc....) Or will the databases limit their operation to just the > licensed/lightly licensed band operations? Or is it just that we are only > defining these terms here. > > Best Regards, > > Sajeev Manikkoth > Mobile: +919663311378 > Email: [email protected] > http://www.linkedin.com/in/mksajeev > > From: Paul Lambert <[email protected]> > To: "Rosen, Brian" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, 31 January 2012, 4:47 > Subject: Re: [paws] Discussion on 'license-exempt' vs 'unlicensed' > > > Uh, whitespace device? > J > Maybe … but if we are talking about the “license” it might be “Database > Licensed”, “Database License-Exempt”, or “White Space Licensed” > > Seems like we had some really excellent definitions – but happened to be > missing the category that we are trying to support. > > “Unlicensed” in FCC terms also has a connotation of multiple users and > robustness. Devices operating “unlicensed” are not concerned about potential > interference with other unlicensed devices. There are potentially multiple > and they generally need to play well together. Licensed devices are > typically a single owner to facilitate a level of service based on a more > coordinated model. > > Seems like all devices are licensed from the perspective that the air-wares > are controlled and allocated. Even unlicensed or licensed exempt allocations > have limitations and device conformance testing. It’s just that the end-user > does not need to explicitly file for a license in these bands. > > As an architecture – all devices have a license, and that some just happen to > have paid money or been given a monopoly by an authority to have a single > user license. Some of the licenses can be short lived and need to be > distributed. Some are implicit based on the conformance tests that the > device must pass. The licenses that paws is addressing are ones that can be > modified by some form of IP communications (aka database lookup). > > So … as an attempt for text …. > > Whitespace licensed: Operation of RF devices in a frequency band where > authorized operation is determined based on a devices location, device type > and operating time period. Coordination of this mode of operation will > typically be managed by databases tracking Licensed operation in the same > bands. > > > Paul > > Paul A. Lambert | Marvell Semiconductor | +1-650-787-9141 > > From: Rosen, Brian [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 2:46 PM > To: Paul Lambert > Cc: Nancy Bravin; Malyar, John P; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [paws] Discussion on 'license-exempt' vs 'unlicensed' > > Uh, whitespace device? > > Sorry, couldn't resist. > > Brian > > On Jan 30, 2012, at 5:44 PM, Paul Lambert wrote: > > > > What is the correct term for something that is operating as a license-exempt > device – yet has been given short term authorization to share a channel with > other license-exempt devices based on a query to a regional authorities > database in a portion of spectrum that may also include licensed or > light-licensed devices at other times or in other areas. > > > Paul > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Gerald Chouinard > Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 3:30 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [paws] Discussion on 'license-exempt' vs 'unlicensed' > > All, > > Here is my understanding of the terms: > > Licensed: Spectrum that is acquired by an operator over a given service area > for a given time period. This is usually done through auctions (think of the > Telcos), beauty contest, first-come / first-served or by government > allocation (e.g., public service). > > Lightly licensed: Special case where thefrequency allocation is done through > first-come / first-served process for a given time frame over a relatively > limited service area. The annual license fee is usually small to facilitate > the deployment of a service that would not normally be economically > attractive. Small local operators would be interested by this (e.g., rural > broadband in Canada) and not big Telcos that would normally work with full > licensing through auction over large service areas. > > License-exempt: Operation of RF devices in a frequency band where no formal > licensing process is needed such as in the 2.4 GHz ISM band. In the USA, this > term is used for a specific type of operation. The FCC should be contacted to > clarify it. > > Unlicensed: Illegal operation of an RF device that can transmit in a > frequency band without a duly issued license. In the USA, this term is used > to mean “license-exempt," see above. > > To my knowledge, the term “unlicensed” is used only in the USA to describe a > legal operation because the term “license-exempt” has been used for another > specific purpose. > > Since the PAWS addresses the interface to the database for the international > market, it should rely on the definition of the terms recognized by the > ITU-R. I would suggest the use of ‘licensed’ and ‘license-exempt’ with a > footnote indicating that the term ‘unlicensed’ is used in the USA instead of > the usual ‘license-exempt’. > > Gerald > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > _______________________________________________ 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
