Folks,
1. As was said by others, "anticipated" is correct. The change in the
charter was not to include a constant dynamic update to the database of
what the device is currently using, but a one-time immediate report of
what the device intends to use. If you prefer "intended" to
"anticipated", that is also fine, but we have *not* discussed the
possibility of writing the protocol to have an update mechanism to
inform the database of the current actual usage. If that's needed, we
should further discuss.
2. I should repeat the admonition I made at the meeting in Paris: We are
*not* writing regulatory requirements into the protocol. We are writing
the protocol to have enough flexibility to satisfy regulatory
requirements. I am quite sure if we asked Ofcom whether they wanted
"anticipated usage" or "actual usage" in the protocol, they'd say
"actual usage", but that is entirely the wrong question to be asking and
we'd be getting a bogus answer. If the regulatory requirement we are
trying to make sure we are able to cover is "a single report by the
device of which spectrum it will be using", then "anticipated" is our
design requirement. Regulators (like end users in general) are not
protocol designers and the language they use for requirements should not
be used in our charter or protocol documents. We need to interpret what
their high-level requirements mean for our protocol and use language
within our documents (including our charter) that makes sense for a
protocol.
So, my question to the list:
Does anybody think we need to have the device constantly report back to
the database about its current usage?
If I don't hear from anybody, I'm going to assume that this is *not*
needed and that the correct charter update to submit to the IESG should
have "anticipated" or "intended".
pr
On 4/16/12 5:13 AM, [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/
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
