Exactly! Anticipated Use is a perfectly acceptable definition. Peter S. On MonApr/16/12 Mon Apr 16, 11:57 PM, "Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]> wrote:
>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 _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
