The questions below and the recent responses from Peter and Joel to this thread seem very reasonable regarding the charter update. I would think the purpose of the WG activity is to provide the capabilities to support the functionality needed to interoperate the WSD with the Database. For example, if a feedback loop is determined to be necessary we should provide the messaging definition. However, the frequency of the message and/or the granularity of the data should be defined by the regulatory authority implementing the rules and not be requirements forced by the interface definition. IMHO.
Kind regards, John Malyar ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Pete Resnick [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 9:42 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [paws] charter update 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 _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
