I would observe that no matter what we think governments might want,
given that the station is reporting channel usage before it actually
uses the channels, the usage is "anticipated usage".
The other meaningful alternative I could find would be to report actual
usage. That would have to be after the fact, and would be a much
larger change in scope.
Yours,
Joel
On 4/16/2012 11:51 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Great. We are now stuck on one word in the charter, which is supposed to
describe the scope of the work. We need a charter update because simply
querying, or querying and reporting sg back is fundamentally different. But how
frequently one reports back is an operational requirement, and less or more
frequent reports do not result in fundamentally different features for the
protocol.
Anyway, I took the controversial word 'anticipated' out from the charter update
text, here's the new version:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-paws-4.txt
I ask again, does anyone has any _substantial_ problems with this version of
the charter text? If yes, say so within the next few days. If not, I'll kindly
ask our AD to take this up with the iesg hopefully at the next telechat.
- Gabor
-----Original Message-----
From: ext [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 5:14 AM
To: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley); [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [paws] charter update
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
