Gabor, The latest version has updates that seem inconsistent and I do not see how to comply with current FCC rules based on the modification.
The following operational requirement appears to enable both FCC and Ofcom approaches : O.3 The master device MUST identify a database to which it will register, make channel requests, etc... The master device MAY select a database for service by discovery at runtime or the master device MAY select a database for service by means of a pre-programmed URI address. However in the requirements it seems that the ability to support the FCC model has been removed. Specifically: It appears that the data model requirements that supported hardcoded URI addresses for WSDBs have been removed D.2 The Data Model MUST support specifying the URI address of a white space database. D.3 The Data Model MUST support specifying the URI address of a national listing service. In addition changes have been made to the discovery requirement (P.1), and the direct access (P.2) has been removed. Which is how I get to the concern that I can no longer support the FCC rule that requires a specific relationship between a radio and DB (or DBs) As a minor editorial comment. The preamble and some of the descriptive text is a little dated. For instance the FCC has issued a 3rd Report and Order since this was originally written. Regards, 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: [paws] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts Since there were quite a few changes made to the new version -04, let’s have another WGLC for this document. Therefore, I'd like to initiate a 2nd WG Last Call for comments on http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-04.txt Please review the draft and send your comments to the list by June 1st, 2012. If you review the draft and have no comments, send a note to the list that the draft is good as it is, we need these notes as much as we need the actual comments. Thanks, Gabor From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Probasco Scott (Nokia-CIC/Dallas) Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 11:51 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [paws] UC&R document Hello All, A new version of the Use Cases & Requirements draft has been uploaded. This version of the Internet Draft has addressed all of the issues raised during Working Group Last Call, including discussion from IETF #83, and is ready to be forwarded to IESG. Kind Regards, Raj & Scott Draft: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-04.txt Diff: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-04 Abstract: Portions of the radio spectrum that are assigned to a particular use but are unused or unoccupied at specific locations and times are defined as "white space". The concept of allowing additional transmissions (which may or may not be licensed) in white space is a technique to "unlock" existing spectrum for new use. An obvious requirement is that these additional transmissions do not interfere with the assigned use of the spectrum. One approach to using the white space spectrum at a given time and location is to verify with a database for available channels. This document describes the concept of TV White Spaces. It also describes the problems that need to be addressed to enable white space spectrum for additional uses, without causing interference to currently assigned use, by querying a database which stores information about the channel availability at any given location and time. A number of possible use cases of white space spectrum and technology as well as a set of requirements for the database query protocol are also described.
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
