Andy,
As I have explained, just saying "report spectrum usage" sounds like it
may involve a dynamically updating process such that any change in
spectrum usage, even if it is post-query, needs to be reported to the
database. That is a *much* larger change than was proposed, which is why
we had it as "anticipated spectrum usage". I also thought that "intended
spectrum usage" was a reasonable compromise. But simply "spectrum usage"
is problematic, and there are several folks who do not agree with this
change as I have read the list. If you wish to suggest another phrase,
that's fine. But I can't go to the IESG with your text.
pr
On 5/3/12 7:30 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Gabor may have a combined view of the proposals - I still support my
initial proposal of April 15^th , which was to change the new bullet
point 5 from "Report to the white space database anticipated spectrum
usage at a suitable granularity" to "Report spectrum usage to the
white space database at a suitable granularity".
Regards
Andy
*From:* Peter Stanforth [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* 03 May 2012 13:24
*To:* Sago,AJ,Andy,COD R; [email protected]; [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [paws] Charter update progress
What is the proposal?
*From: *"[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*To: *"[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject: *[paws] Charter update progress
Gabor
There has been no reflector discussion since 24^th April UK time. Can
we now submit the charter proposal to the IESG, or has that already
happened?
Thanks
Andy
--
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
