So, from Gerald and Andy's comments, it seems like from the point of view of (at least) two regulatory entities it is important for the protocol to allow communicating back to the WSDB/coexistence manager the actual channel usage after the first query is made.
This is to me a very clear requirement. The actual messages/IEs that would carry this information should be discussed as part of the solution document, and not the requirements. JC > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Gerald Chouinard > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 1:59 PM > To: 'Joel M. Halpern'; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [paws] WGLC for draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases- > rqmts-03:channel reporting > > Joel, Scott, > > Interesting discussion! See my comments in line below. > > Gerald > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Joel > M. Halpern > Sent: Thursday, 08 March, 2012 13:17 > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [paws] WGLC for draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases- > rqmts-03: > channel reporting > > So why won't the device simply say "I will use all of this?" > [GC] This would defeat the purpose of the acknowledgement message. > After all, that way it needs to do less work with the database. And it > can change frequencies when it wants. > Given that the stated goal of the Ofcom requriement was to be able to > analyze interference effects, it seems that this will not actually lead > to them getting what they want, even if it does comply with the > regulations. > [GC] You got it. This would be useless for spectrum regulators. One > should > realize that, from the spectrum regulator's point of view, the second > and > third messages could be iterated upon to optimize the spectrum use. > Knowing > what channels the systems in an area are using, the spectrum regulators > and/or other entities such as those taking care of coexistence could > use the > database in near-real-time to iterate on the two last messages to > reduce the > range of channels that some systems may use once they know precisely > what > channels are being used in the area. The PAWS protocol would carry the > information back and forth but would not be involved in such spectrum > use > optimization. > > Yours, > joel > > On 3/8/2012 1:09 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > > > Answers below. > > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott > > > > On 3/8/12 11:39 AM, "ext Peter Saint-Andre"<[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Hi Scott, I have two clarifying questions: > >> > >> 1. Does the device know, when it receives the channel response, > which > >> channel it will actually use? > > Scott->This is all new and I am not aware of any existing > implementations. > > I would argue that the device must decide what channel(s) it will use > when > > it receives the channel response. > [GC] Agree with Scott but this is only a portion of the considerations. > If a > device was to operate on its own, this would be true but a > communication > device usually implies at least 2 devices to communicate. Hence, the > choice > of the channel to be used will need to be negotiated between the two > devices > before a choice can be made. The chosen channel will belong to the set > of > available channels that is common to both devices. Remember that some > channels may be available at one device and not at the other because of > their geolocation or other reason. Extending this concept to a star > network > topology, the channel that will be selected by this network will have > to > belong to the set of channels that are available to all devices. Each > device > will not be able to decide by itself which channel it wants to use. > > This is why in such a star topology, it makes sense that the slave > devices > to a base station or access point be represented by the base station > acting > as the master on their behalf to query the database and receive the > list of > available channels (and/or maximum EIRP per channel). It is then the > responsibility of the base station to identify the set of available > channels > that is common for itself and all its slaves to decide on the channel > that > the network will use. As you can see, in this case, there is no need > for > each slave to receive its list of available channels. On its own, it > would > not know what to do with it. The only thing that needs to be sent from > the > master device to its slaves is the resulting operating channel. > > I a more sophisticated operation, the master device may add one or a > few > backup channels extracted from the common set of available channel to > the > message going to its slave so that if a change in channel availability > occurs, an instantaneous switch to the next backup channel can be made > without any further signaling, thus providing for a channel switch that > is > transparent to the user. It is the scheme that has been included in the > IEEE > 802.22-2011 Standard. This is why I don't believe that PAWS should get > involved in defining this signaling between the base station and its > slaves > devices. > >> > >> 2. If the device then uses another channel or a different channel, > does > >> it need to report that change to the database? > > Scott->My interpretation of section 3.18 is that the device can only > > transmit within the upper& lower frequencies returned in the > > acknowledgment. I do not (quickly) find any reference in the > requirements > > to changing channels. Thus operationally it could be that the channel > > request process must be repeated before the device can use a > different > > channel (frequencies). > [GC] If the process involves 2 messages, then, the device and its > associated > devices could change channels at will as long as all these channels > belong > to the set of available channel. However, if the third message is > added, it > would make sense that the master device reports to the database any > channel > change that would occur to the database, otherwise, the status of the > spectrum occupation would be wrong at any moment and would be useless > for > the purpose of any spectrum usage optimization such as coexistence. > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> Peter > >> > >> On 3/8/12 10:17 AM, [email protected] wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> The point from Brian is very relevant: > >>> > >>> Channel request > >>> Channel response > >>> Channel acknowledgement > >>> > >>> What Ofcom does with the information in the acknowledgement does > not > >>> matter. As the regulator in UK, they write rules that must be > followed > >>> in > >>> order to operate a whitespace radio in the UK. I believe the scope > of > >>> the > >>> WG must be focused on a working solution. If this is simple channel > >>> request& response in one regulator's domain, PAWS can support > this. If > >>> it > >>> means a channel request, response and acknowledgement in another > >>> regulator's domain, PAWS can support this. As a participating > member of > >>> the work group, I believe the scope should be basic working > solution, > >>> not > >>> limited to a specific number of messages. > >>> > >>> Kind Regards, > >>> Scott > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 3/8/12 11:11 AM, "ext Zuniga, Juan Carlos" > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Peter, Nancy, > >>>> > >>>> I agree should design a protocol with the best of our current > >>>> knowledge, > >>>> and that should be accounting for all the known regulations at > present > >>>> time. We should not limit the scope with the purpose of designing > a > >>>> protocol 'faster'. Our goal is not only to design a WSDB protocol. > Our > >>>> goal is to design a WSDB protocol that is USEFUL to the community. > >>>> > >>>> The charter does state that > >>>> > >>>> "...the group should also reach out to other potential > >>>> "customers" for a white space database access method and consider > input > >>> >from regulatory entities that are involved in the specification of > the > >>>> rules for secondary use of spectrum in specific radio bands. " > >>>> > >>>> I think that is exactly what we are doing now. > >>>> > >>>> Regarding whether the types of requirements belong to #1 or #2, I > >>>> believe > >>>> it is more of #1 type, as the information to be exchanged would be > >>>> known > >>>> after the initial query/response. > >>>> > >>>> If we know it today, I see no reason why we should not work on it > in > >>>> the > >>>> first phase of the work. > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> > >>>> Juan Carlos > >>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf > >>>>> Of > >>>>> Peter Saint-Andre > >>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 11:59 AM > >>>>> To: Nancy Bravin > >>>>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > Pete > >>>>> Resnick > >>>>> Subject: Re: [paws] WGLC for draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt- > usecases- > >>>>> rqmts-03: channel reporting > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Nancy, > >>>>> > >>>>> You are absolutely right that different locales will have > different > >>>>> rules and requirements. We need to understand those, and work to > >>>>> address > >>>>> them if possible (although we don't necessarily need to address > them > >>>>> all > >>>>> at the same time). I see several kinds of requirements: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. Some requirements might lead to features beyond the > query/response > >>>>> protocol we've envisioned so far. One example might be real-time > >>>>> reporting about the channels that a device is actually using. In > my > >>>>> opinion, it would be best to handle those in the next phase of > work, > >>>>> because as far as I can see they are outside the scope of our > charter. > >>>>> > >>>>> 2. Some requirements might be handled through by defining > additional > >>>>> fields that can be included in the query or response. We > definitely > >>>>> planned for that when working on the charter with the IESG: > >>>>> > >>>>> In addition, the particular > >>>>> data exchanged between a device and a database might depend on > the > >>>>> ranges of radio spectrum that are to be used, the requirements > of > >>>>> the > >>>>> database operators and their governing regulations, and other > >>>>> factors. > >>>>> Therefore, the database access method and the query/response > data > >>>>> formats that are exchanged using that method need to be > designed > for > >>>>> extensibility rather than being tied to any specific spectrum, > >>>>> country, or phy/mac/air interface. > >>>>> > >>>>> It's unclear to me right now if the Ofcom requirement fits into > #1 or > >>>>> #2, which is why we're having this discussion. :) > >>>>> > >>>>> Peter > >>>>> > >>>>> On 3/7/12 8:17 PM, Nancy Bravin wrote: > >>>>>> Peter and all, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I agree that it is important to revisit now, so that in the > future, > >>>>>> it will be easy to align things in their proper place. Every > country > >>>>>> may have different regulations, spectrum, policy and what > >>>>>> responsibility is in the domain of the system, and what comes > under > >>>>>> the PAWS charter is important. Maybe some separation might be > >>>>>> possible, and dividing and clarifying issues now will help in > the > >>>>>> future. Certainly it seems that the FCC may change some rules, > and > >>>>>> we know that Ofcom is not yet finished with their regulations. > Canada > >>>>>> has their own, and other countries are working on this as well. > Just > >>>>>> a thought...Sharing is a realistic goal...as is off loading... > Or you > >>>>>> slim line and every 6 months decide what to incorporate in the > >>>>>> protocol based on new information, new ideas, new innovation new > >>>>>> regulations and maybe spend more time than you could if > addressed > >>>>>> now. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That way you leave the door open and outside of referencing what > is > >>>>>> known today, by referencing regulations i.e. Ofcom, FCC, > Industry > >>>>>> Canada etc as of XX-XX-XXXX date. Out of scope not something we > know > >>>>>> enough about to say at this point, In my opinion. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> My 2 cents.. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sincerely, Nancy > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Mar 7, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> <hat type='AD'/> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> As your responsible Area Director (until March 28, when Pete > >>>>>>> Resnick will take over from me), I have reviewed this thread. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In my opinion (I am happy to be proven wrong), this new > requirement > >>>>>>> goes beyond what the charter defined as the scope of this > working > >>>>>>> group, which was to enable a device to discover the white space > >>>>>>> available to it in its current location. Reporting usage back > to > >>>>>>> the database is simply not mentioned in the charter. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Earlier in this thread, Andy Sago wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> There's no language I can find in the charter that explicitly > puts > >>>>>>> this out of scope. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> An IETF charter defines what the working group shall work on. > Many > >>>>>>> interesting features could be developed here. However, it is > not > >>>>>>> the job of the charter to mention explicitly that each of those > >>>>>>> interesting features is out of scope. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The charter does say: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Once the device learns of the available white space (e.g., in a > TV > >>>>>>> white space implementation, the list of available channels at > that > >>>>>>> location), it can then select one of the bands from the list > and > >>>>>>> begin to transmit and receive on the selected band. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This text might have assumed that no further communication or > >>>>>>> authorization was required in order to select one of the bands > from > >>>>>>> the list and then transmit/receive. Perhaps that assumption was > >>>>>>> mistaken. If so, it would be good to have a discussion about > that, > >>>>>>> so we can determine if we need to revisit the assumptions we > made > >>>>>>> early on. If in fact we made some faulty or limited > assumptions, > >>>>>>> then let's get that out in the open. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Peter > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 3/7/12 9:40 AM, Rosen, Brian wrote: > >>>>>>>> <as individual, at least for now> I'd also suggest that our > >>>>>>>> charter limitation is really support for sharing of whitespace > by > >>>>>>>> whitespace devices. Reporting what you use is not sharing, > it's > >>>>>>>> just data gathering. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The point of excluding sharing was to eliminate the > complexities > >>>>>>>> of what constituted fairness, and what kinds of communication > >>>>>>>> might be needed between databases, where more than one could > >>>>>>>> supply available whitespace in a band. This doesn't have any > of > >>>>>>>> those issues, As long as it's just sending information, I > don't > >>>>>>>> have a problem. Once the database is supposed to do anything > >>>>>>>> with it that involves changing what spectrum it reports, then > I > >>>>>>>> think we cross the line. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Brian > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 2012, at 12:28 PM,<[email protected]> > >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Joel > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Indeed, the regulator has not described the process or > provided > >>>>>>>>> a flow diagram, so there may be some wrinkles, but we need to > >>>>>>>>> provide for their intent. To answer your question, the > channels > >>>>>>>>> that the master will use are sent in a separate message > >>>>>>>>> (described in P.12 ter), that occurs after the master > receives > >>>>>>>>> the response to its channel request, but before the master > can > >>>>>>>>> transmit. At this point, it knows what channels are > available, > >>>>>>>>> and which one it will use. As far as the slaves are > concerned, > >>>>>>>>> as they associate, the master will need to gather their > details > >>>>>>>>> and send further channel usage messages to the database on > >>>>>>>>> their behalf. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Regards > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Andy > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] > >>>>>>>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern > >>>>>>>>> Sent: 06 March 2012 17:05 To: [email protected] Cc: > >>>>>>>>> [email protected]; Cheeseman,CJ,Chris,COD R; Dixon,JS,Johnny,COD > R > >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [paws] WGLC for > >>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-03: channel > >>>>>>>>> reporting > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Ahh. I think I see where the request and my understanding > >>>>>>>>> divurge. If the idea here is that the master must provide, in > >>>>>>>>> the request, an indication of what channels it expects to > use, > >>>>>>>>> I can at least understand that. I will return to technical > >>>>>>>>> concerns in a moment. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> However, when you say "provide channel usage information, in > >>>>>>>>> order to evaluate interference", what that says to me is > >>>>>>>>> providing, during operation, information as to what channels > >>>>>>>>> are being used, and at what power levels. That is what would > >>>>>>>>> be needed to analyze actual interference effects. And that is > >>>>>>>>> out of scope as I understand our scope. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I do see a technical difficulty with having the master > provide, > >>>>>>>>> as part of either registering or requesting spectrum > >>>>>>>>> information, what channels it intends to use. It doesn;t > know > >>>>>>>>> what channels it intends to use. It intends to use some > number > >>>>>>>>> of available channels. It will figure out which ones when it > >>>>>>>>> is told what is available. How can it send that information > in > >>>>>>>>> the request? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Yours, Joel > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2012 11:48 AM, [email protected] wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> There is a similarity here with device ID. In context of > PAWS > >>>>>>>>>> we are not concerned with why a device ID is required by a > >>>>>>>>>> regulator, we accept it is a requirement from a regulator > and > >>>>>>>>>> include it to the protocol. Ofcom identifies in 3.18& 3.19 > >>>>>>>>>> that channel usage information is required and thus we need > >>>>>>>>>> to include this information. Since the master must provide > >>>>>>>>>> this information prior to transmitting, PAWS will not > >>>>>>>>>> function in the UK without this information and thus I > >>>>>>>>>> believe channel usage information is integral to the channel > >>>>>>>>>> request& response messaging. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Kind Regards, Scott > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/12 10:30 AM, "ext Joel M. > >>>>>>>>>> Halpern"<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I would draw a distinction. Ofcom regulations about > >>>>>>>>>>> whitespace requests are very much relevant. Ofcom > >>>>>>>>>>> regulations about notification of dynamic behavior (which > >>>>>>>>>>> spectrum is being used) are not in scope as I understand > >>>>>>>>>>> the earlier discussions, particularly the chartering > >>>>>>>>>>> discussions. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Yours, Joel > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2012 11:22 AM, [email protected] wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The ofcom requirements are very much relevant to the > >>>>>>>>>>>> scope of the PAWS WG. The only other regulatory > >>>>>>>>>>>> requirements that we have today is the FCC. Ofcom > >>>>>>>>>>>> requirements are a good addition to the set. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> -Raj > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/12 10:03 AM, "ext > >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]"<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joel > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> There's no language I can find in the charter that > >>>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly puts this out of scope. On the other hand, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the charter says that the group will "consider input > >>>>>>>>>>>>> from regulatory entities", and this is one of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> requirements from Ofcom that they have just published. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The protocol will be worthless for the UK if it omits > >>>>>>>>>>>>> some requirements. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Joel M. Halpern > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 06 March 2012 15:53 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Sago,AJ,Andy,COD R Cc: [email protected]; > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] Subject: Re: [paws] WGLC for > >>>>>>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-03: channel > >>>>>>>>>>>>> reporting > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As I understand, the information you are asking for is > >>>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly out of scope for the working group. Yours, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Joel > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2012 10:42 AM, [email protected] wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Comparing the draft with the Ofcom requirements at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.cept.org/Documents/se- > >>>>> 43/4161/SE43(12)Info03_Draft-UK-r > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> egul > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 3Ž4 k 3Ž4 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 39, 0 3Ž4 n 3Ž4 39, 1 3Ž4 m 3Ž4 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-u > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> seca > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
