Hi, Thank you Teco and Andy for the comments. I will include the proposed text in the next version, assuming no conflicting comments to the thread.
Kind Regards, Scott From: ext com <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:16:23 +0000 To: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Scott <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [paws] draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-02.txt Scott, Teco Teco makes a good suggestion to amend the US text, for historical accuracy. Certainly in UK there is no connection between digital switchover and permitting white space usage per se, but the two became connected in people’s minds due to their similar timing. I guess there could be a similar confusion in US. Regards Andy From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Teco Boot Sent: 03 February 2012 07:41 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [paws] draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-02.txt Hi Scott, Something like this? <delete>With</delete><insert>Besides</insert> the switch to digital transmission for TV, the guard bands that <delete>existed</delete><insert>exists</insert> to protect the signals between stations can <delete>now </delete>be used for other purposes. Teco Op 2 feb. 2012, om 23:21 heeft <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> het volgende geschreven: Hi Teco, Did you have any text you want to suggest? I guess the text in question is accurate enough in practical terms, even if it does allow room for discussion in theoretical terms. I get your point that white space paradigm applies regardless of the incumbent radio service. I also believe a thorough discussion of your comment would wander into the realm of radio transmission theory and perhaps we could leave that for offline discussion at the next meeting :-) Kind Regards, Scott From: ext Teco Boot <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 22:47:35 +0100 To: Scott <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: ext com <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [paws] draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-02.txt Hi Scott, It is a pity EU cannot report a straightforward plan for usage of white spaces. But steps are taken. The doc has already a ref to ECC Report 159. Minor comment on: With the switch to digital transmission for TV, the guard bands that existed to protect the signals between stations can now be used for other purposes. I'm not sure this is true. I can't see why analogue broadcasting didn't had white spaces. Maybe it is just an increased demand on spectrum and the opportunities created with new technology, such as PAWS. Teco Op 2 feb. 2012, om 21:26 heeft <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> het volgende geschreven: Hi Andy, Very good to cover the UK situation also. I support your proposal and plan to include the new section in the next update, pending any further discussion on this thread. Kind Regards, Scott From: ext com <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 19:40:01 +0000 To: Scott <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-02.txt Scott Section 3 only addresses the US, presumably due to lack of contributions from elsewhere. I propose a couple of short paragraphs to cover the UK situation. The wording is not mine but is almost entirely taken from the latest Ofcom Statement. Section 3.2 is copied below for reference, unchanged, and I propose a new section 3.3, also below: 3.2. Background information on white space in US Television transmission in the United States has moved to the use of digital signals as of June 12, 2009. Since June 13, 2009, all fullpower U.S. television stations have broadcast over-the-air signals in digital only. An important benefit of the switch to all-digital broadcasting is that it freed up parts of the valuable broadcast spectrum. More information about the switch to digital transmission is at : [DTV]. Probasco & Patil Expires July 30, 2012 [Page 8] Internet-Draft PAWS: Problem, uses and requirements January 2012 With the switch to digital transmission for TV, the guard bands that existed to protect the signals between stations can now be used for other purposes. The FCC has made this spectrum available for unlicensed use and this is generally referred to as white space. Please see the details of the FCC ruling and regulations in [FCC Ruling]. The spectrum can be used to provide wireless broadband as an example. The term "Super-Wifi" is also used to describe this spectrum and potential for providing wifi type of service. <Insert> 3.3. Background information on white space in UK Since its launch in 2005, Ofcom’s Digital Dividend Review [DDR] has considered how to make the spectrum freed up by digital switchover available for new uses, including the capacity available within the spectrum that is retained to carry the digital terrestrial television service. Similarly to the US, this interleaved or guard spectrum occurs because not all the spectrum in any particular location will be used for terrestrial television and so is available for other services, as long as they can interleave their usage around the existing users. In its September 2011 Statement [Ofcom Implementing] Ofcom says that a key element in enabling white space usage in the TV bands is the definition and provision of a database which, given a device’s location, can tell the device which frequency channels and power levels it is able to use without causing harmful interference to other licensed users in the vicinity. Ofcom will specify requirements to be met by such geolocation databases. It also says that the technology has the possibility of being usefully applied elsewhere in the radio spectrum to ensure it is used to maximum benefit. For example, it may have potential in making spectrum available for new uses following any switch to digital radio services. Alternatively it may be helpful in exploiting some of the public sector spectrum holdings. Ofcom will continue to consider other areas of the radio spectrum where white space usage may be of benefit. </Insert> Regards Andy From:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: 26 January 2012 23:43 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [paws] draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-02.txt 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]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
