Re: - P.14/P.15 state that the protocol must support a "validation request from the master to the database to validate a slave device". Is this a master relaying a request to the WSDB on behalf of a slave? It is not clear what validation means. It would be good to provide some more explanatory text.
In the context of FCC certified databases and devices, Fixed or Mode II TVBD (master devices) must verify that the FCC identifier (FCC ID) of the Mode I device (slave) is valid before sending a channel list to the slave. In other words, before a master device sends a channel list to a slave device, the master device must send a verification request message to the database to validate the slave's reported FCC ID. The master may only send a channel list to the slave device after the database has validated the FCC ID by sending a success in the reply to a verification request message. Don From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Zuniga, Juan Carlos Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 6:18 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [paws] WGLC for draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-03: protocol details Hi all, I have taken a look at the Ofcom requirements reference on the CEPT site and besides the points raised by Andy I believe the following protocol requirements should also be addressed in the PAWS requirements doc: - Ofcom 3.11 A master WSD must communicate its technology identifier to a WSDB - This is needed to identify the type of RAT being used, beyond the antenna, power and channel characteristics. Having said that, we had some issues in IEEE 802.21 where we were playing a horse race with the constantly evolving 802.11, 3GPP, etc PHY technologies, so perhaps another approach could be to specify directly the modulation, medium access method, etc. instead of the actual RAT ID. We don't need to define the actual solution now, as long as the requirement allows it in the future. Suggested text: o D.5: The Data Model MUST support specifying an ID of the transmitter device. This ID would contain the ID of the transmitter device that has been certified by a regulatory body for its regulatory domain. The Data Model MUST support a device class. <Insert> The Data Model MUST support specifying information about the type of RAT of the transmitter device.</Insert> - Ofcom 3.15 A master WSD must communicate to a WSDB whether it, and its associated slave WSDs, are fixed devices or portable/mobile devices - Not sure if this is covered by "device class" in D.5. Since Device Class is not defined in the document, I would suggest either defining it as including fixed vs. mobile/portable characteristics, or adding a sentence at the end of D.5 such as "The Data Model MUST support specifying whether the transmitter device is fixed or mobile/portable." - Ofcom 3.16 A fixed master WSD may communicate to a WSDB whether it, and its associated fixed slave WSDs, are indoor devices or outdoor devices - Similar to the previous 3.15 requirement. I would suggest either adding a definition for Device Class including indoor or outdoor characteristics, or adding a sentence in D.5 like "The Data Model MAY support specifying whether the transmitter is an outdoor or indoor device." Also, I believe we need to add some clarification on the following: - P.14/P.15 state that the protocol must support a "validation request from the master to the database to validate a slave device". Is this a master relaying a request to the WSDB on behalf of a slave? It is not clear what validation means. It would be good to provide some more explanatory text. - Now that the CEPT version of the Ofcom requirements is publicly available we should add a reference to the document in Section 3.3 "Background information on white space in the UK." Regards, Juan Carlos From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]]<mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]> On Behalf Of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 2:46 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[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-usecases-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
