> given that the station is reporting channel usage before it actually uses the > channels, the usage is "anticipated usage"
I totally agree. Since Ofcom requires that reporting be made right after the channel request, it seems common sense that the report would be about anticipated usage, even if the magic word is not there. I thought we could cut the discussions short by removing it. - Gabor -----Original Message----- From: ext Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 8:58 PM To: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley) Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [paws] charter update 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
