All
Comparing the draft with the Ofcom requirements at
http://www.cept.org/Documents/se-43/4161/SE43(12)Info03_Draft-UK-regul
atory-requirements-for-white-space-devices-in-the-UHF-TV-band,
I believe the WG draft is deficient in the area of reporting
frequencies and powers actually used by masters and slaves (Ofcom
requirements 3.18 and 3.19.8). Ofcom intends to collect this data to
assesses the impact of aggregate interference into other services. It
would also provide usage information (frequency in use) that would
inform the operation of a kill switch capability. I suggest this
deficiency can be remedied with the following changes:
New P requirements (probably best placed following P.12):
P.12bis: The protocol MUST support a channel usage message from the
slave device to the master device. The channel usage message MUST
include parameters as required by local regulatory requirement. These
parameters MAY include device ID, manufacturer's serial number,
channel usage and power level information.
P.12ter: The protocol MUST support a channel usage message from the
master device to the database. The channel usage message MUST include
parameters as required by local regulatory requirement for the master
and its associated slaves. These parameters MAY include device ID,
manufacturer's serial number, channel usage and power level information.
P.12qua: The protocol MUST support a channel usage message
acknowledgement.
New O requirements (probably best placed following O13):
O.13bis: According to local regulatory policy, after connecting to a
master device's radio network a slave device MAY inform the master
device of the actual channel usage. The slave MUST include parameters
required by local regulatory policy, e.g. device ID, manufacturer's
serial number, channel usage and power level information.
O.13ter: According to local regulatory policy, a master device MAY
inform the database of the actual channel usage of the master and its
slaves. The master MUST include parameters required by local
regulatory policy, e.g. device ID, manufacturer's serial number,
channel usage and power level information of the master and its slaves.
New steps could be introduced into one or more use cases to cover
these Ofcom requirements, e.g. new steps 6bis and 9bis in the hotspot
use case at 4.2.1:
6bis. Prior to initiating transmission, if required by local
regulation, the master/AP informs the database of the channel and
power level it has chosen. This is repeated for each slave that
associated with the master.
9bis. Prior to initiating transmission, if required by local
regulation, the slave informs the master/AP of the channel and power
level it has chosen, and the master/AP relays this information to the
database.
- end of new text -
For information, for those not accessing the url in the first
paragraph of this email, the full Ofcom requirements leading to this
new PAWS text are as follows:
3.18 After receiving instructions from a WSDB in relation to the
maximum permitted EIRPs over the DTT channels, and prior to initiating
transmissions within the UHF TV band, a master WSD must communicate to
the WSDB the following information:
3.18.1 The lower and upper frequency boundaries^13 of the in-block
emissions of the master WSD, and those of the in-block emissions of
its associated slaves. A lower frequency will be specified as (470 +
8k +
0.2n) MHz, with the corresponding upper frequency specified as (470 +
8k
+ 0.2m) MHz, where 0 ¾ k ¾ 39, 0 ¾ n ¾ 39, 1 ¾ m ¾ 40, and n< m.
3.18.2 The maximum in-block EIRP spectral densities (in dBm/(0.2 MHz))
that the master WSD, and its associated slaves, actually radiate
between each reported lower frequency boundary and its corresponding
upper frequency boundary.
Footnote 13 states:
The use of upper and lower frequency boundaries (defined over a 200
kHz
raster) allows a WSDB to collect more granular information with
regards to the usage of the frequency resource by narrowband WSD
technologies.
The upper and lower frequencies of a boundary pair do not straddle a
DTT channel boundary. Note that a WSD may transmit over multiple,
non-contiguous, whole DTT channels or fractions of DTT channels.
3.19 A master WSD must be able to receive the following information^14
from a WSDB:
<snip>
3.19.8 [An acknowledgement from the WSDB, in the context of 3.18,
that the reported information on the DTT channels and EIRP spectral
densities actually used by the master and slave WSDs were received
successfully by the WSDB^18 ].
Footnote 14 states:
14 While the communication of some of this information from a WSDB to
a master WSD is optional, master WSDs must be able to receive and
interpret these.
Footnote 18 states:
18 This forms part of a handshake protocol and may be an area where
industry could harmonise without the need for an explicit requirement
in the regulations.
Regards
Andy
*From:*[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf
Of *[email protected]
*Sent:* 05 March 2012 19:46
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* [paws] WGLC for
draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-03
The authors of the use cases and requirements draft have just posted a
new version of the draft and indicated that there are no unresolved
comments/issues they are aware of.
Therefore, I'd like to initiate a WG Last Call for comments on
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-useca
ses-rqmts-03.txt
Please review the draft and send your comments to the list by March
20th, 2012.
If you review the draft and have no comments, send a note to the list
that the draft is good as it is, we need these notes as much as we
need the actual comments.
Thanks, Gabor
_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
