As a database provider I have no idea how I am supposed to comply with this "requirement". I am not even sure I know what it means. It is one thing to require the RAN to provide its operating boundaries in terms of power, frequency range and even ACLR but beyond that it is pure speculation. First a practical observation. We are currently supporting the development of 8-9 different TVWS radios in the US. Each operates in a very different way. How is the database supposed to "normalize" their behavior, and for what reason? How is the database to determine the actual use? Some of the radios frequency hop between the channels provided. One creates channel pairs. Some "Bond" channels, some "aggregate" channels. All have the capability to adapt (move) to different channels if the operating channel is no longer appropriate. How is this to be reported initially to the DB and at what frequency? Under what circumstances does the RAN report changes to the DB? What does the DB do with this information?
Let me be very clear. We would like to have information like this and with some radios we actually acquire this information and use it, but it is in a very proprietary way - in that I can't see how this would work with some other radios rather than because it is a secret. So I am comfortable with a mechanism that allows radios to report spectrum use (I used the word spectrum deliberately) but until some of the issues raised above are addressed this is just a can of worms. I would be happy to take this discussion further with anyone off list if you would like more details. Peter S. On MonApr/16/12 Mon Apr 16, 8:13 AM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: >Gabor > >Like Gerald, I am uneasy with the use of the word "anticipated". We can >ask Ofcom, but I am sure they will just point us to their regulatory >requirements which use phrasing like "a master WSD must communicate to >the WSDB the following information: .... The lower and upper frequency >boundaries of the in-block emissions.... The maximum in-block EIRP >spectral densities (in dBm/(0.2 MHz)) that the master WSD, and its >associated slaves, actually radiate ....". So their regulatory >requirements are for actual usage, not anticipated. It may be foolish for >the group to agree charter text that says something different. Can we >just delete the word "anticipated" in the new bullet 5? The word order >could be changed to " Report spectrum usage to the white space database >at a suitable granularity". > >Andy > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >Gerald Chouinard >Sent: 15 April 2012 18:40 >To: [email protected] >Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] >Subject: Re: [paws] charter update > >Gabor, > >I am wandering is the word "anticipated" will be good enough for OFCOM. >You may want to verify with them. To establish a status of the spectrum >usage in an area, the regulator will likely need the actual usage of this >spectrum and not only its "anticipated" usage. > >My two cents ... > >Gerald > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >[email protected] >Sent: Friday, 13 April, 2012 16:31 >To: [email protected]; [email protected] >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [paws] charter update > >Pete, Peter, > >There doesn't seem to be any objection to this charter update text on the >list from the WG members. Could you guys take this charter proposal text >to the iesg's telechat? > >Thanks, Gabor > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley) >Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 1:02 PM >To: [email protected] >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [paws] charter update > >Here's the charter update proposal text: >http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-paws-4.txt > >According to diff, the are 6 lines changed, including the update to the >milestones. The main change is adding bullet point 5: " Report to the >white space database anticipated spectrum usage at a suitable >granularity." > >- Gabor > > >-----Original Message----- >From: ext Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 6:06 PM >To: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley) >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [paws] charter update > >On 4/9/12 3:40 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> Folks, >> >> There was long discussion on the list before the Paris F2F about the >> newly surfaced Ofcom requirements, which require the master devices to >> report back to the wsdb the spectrum chosen for operation. Since this >> aspect is not captured in the current charter, during the F2F we >> discussed how to capture those requirements and there was no objection >> to a slight charter update. >> >> The tentative charter update text I showed in slide 7 of >> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-paws-0.pptx had >> one objection to the text added as a 5^th bullet point: "5. Report >> back to the white space database use information, including the chosen >> channels for operation and other relevant information", noting that >> the result may be a chatty behavior in case of frequency hopping (see >> the >minutes). >> >> The new proposal would be to replace the text in bullet 5 with "Report >> to the white space database anticipated spectrum usage at a suitable >> granularity." This text seem to be fine with Joel, who raised the >objection. >> >> I hope there is consensus in the wg for this new wording for the >> charter update text. If there is no objection on the list to this >> newly proposed text in the next few days, I would ask our AD to take >> the proposed charter update text in slide 7 of >> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-paws-0.pptx, with >> the new text for bullet 5, to the iesg. > >Hi Gabor, > >Would you be so kind as to send the actual text to the list? That will >make it easier for people to track the changes, search on this thread, >etc. > >Thanks! > >Peter > >-- >Peter Saint-Andre >https://stpeter.im/ > > >_______________________________________________ >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
