As a participant who has been trying to understand this aspect of the
discussion, I have to say that I don't think I saw anything like rough
consensus on such a reporting requirement.
And I would consider it a major addition to our work plan.
Can we finish the first part of the work before we debate new work items?
Yours,
Joel
On 5/9/2012 3:15 PM, Amer Hassan wrote:
A few comments on the channel reporting part of the charter…
Consensus in the group (PAWS) that there is need for TVWS channel usage
pattern. Most of us agree. There has been a lot of discussions on
channel reporting from the device to the database on what channels the
device will use or anticipate to use (or something along this line).
However, for the suggested purpose of channel reporting it seems to make
sense that *the TVWS device report back to the database the channels it
had used since the last query*. This requirement is simple, AND it is
more accurate in accomplishing the goals for channel reporting than
reporting “anticipated” channel use. We think this is the right approach.
Thoughts?
Best,
Amer and Paul
*From:*[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf
Of *[email protected]
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 09, 2012 11:53 AM
*To:* [email protected]; [email protected]
*Cc:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [paws] Charter update progress
Gerald,
Peter indicated in his email that regulators (ie Ofcom) may not have a
problem with anticipated usage.
I agree that the interference calculations need the data about the
actual usage, but this does not seem to be a requirement of any
regulator for the time being.
-Gabor
*From:*ext Gerald Chouinard [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 09, 2012 8:18 AM
*To:* 'Peter Stanforth'; Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley)
*Cc:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* RE: [paws] Charter update progress
Pete, Gabor,
You may want to look at this from the regulators’ point of view. For
them, the only thing that counts is that the spectrum is used or not.
"Anticipated", "intended" or "expected" usage is not something that they
are use to deal with. It is being used or not so that the interference
calculations can be done properly. The “real-time” aspect is another
matter that has to do with the time granularity of the spectrum usage
but at any moment, the spectrum is used or not. The intention or
expectation of using the spectrum is an aspect that is orthogonal to
whether the spectrum is actually used or not.
My two cents …
Gerald
*From:*[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] <mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]>
*On Behalf Of *Peter Stanforth
*Sent:* Monday, 07 May, 2012 18:28
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [paws] Charter update progress
I am sorry if my last message created/added to the confusion. I was not
opposed to the wording we had, that Pete quoted. I know that I was one
of several people that asked Ofcom directly what they were looking for,
I did not get any indication that our proposed language using
"anticipated", "intended" or "expected" was a problem.
Peter S.
*From: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
To: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [paws] Charter update progress *
**
*Peter,*
**
*The question is what features do we want the protocol to have. If we
want to report ‘intended spectrum usage’, that can possibly be done
within the same transaction as the query/response for channel
availability. If instead we want to report the ‘actual spectrum usage’,
that means that the protocol will need to have the capability to allow
the clients autonomously contacting the DB and reporting any change in
spectrum usage at any time during their operation. The IESG may want to
know which features do we want to design. *
*Some folks suggested anticipated/intended usage, to hint that we do not
need the protocol to send reports dynamically. Since you oppose that
wording, I guess you want ‘actual usage’ then, as that is the only
alternative I could see. Can you confirm if that’s what you want. We can
ask if people on the list agree with this. If yes, then bingo.*
*If not, then we won’t have a charter update until we agree on this
text, and consequently we can’t include the Ofcom reporting requirements
to the Use Cases and Requirements draft.*
**
-*Gabor*
**
**
**
*From: ext Peter Stanforth [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 2:15 PM
To: Pete Resnick; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Cc: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley); [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [paws] Charter update progress*
**
*Pete,*
*I share your sentiments. A feedback loop is very desirable but I don't
think that the implication is well understood. So the charter should
avoid defining what or how it would be provided until we have had chance
to get some input and contributions on the issue. *
*Peter S.*
**
*From: Pete Resnick <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
To: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: Peter Stanforth <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [paws] Charter update progress*
**
*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] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] <mailto:[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
_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
