HI Andy, Peter, Gabor and all Thanks for including the draft. My issue is to be as relevant and up to date as possible when we approach the IESG, and that includes possible adjustments to the PAWS draft. So to you and others, how to change the wording, to be inclusive of the FCC, Ofcom, Canada, or any other country's regulations by being general in the protocol statement, but also specific to those rules that differ in the FCC or OFcom, or some new country that wants to do things in a different way by using a "MUST" be required if specified by local regulations ? Yes, I want my cake and be able to eat it too…But I may not be thinking of this is the appropriate manner as far as the members are concerned. I hope that others can join the conversation and not merely abstain involving themselves at this point publicly. We need to have statements of support or lack of support with reasons for either, offer changes, when needed, support for what is OK at this point and then to get the information to Garbor, who needs and has asked for it. And by looking at the new rules in the 3rd R & O from the FCC, and the draft attached, what issues have changed that require being addressed? Thoughts anyone???
Sincerely, On May 24, 2012, at 11:35 AM, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: > All > > There was a new draft from Ofcom last Thursday on the parameters to be > exchanged between WSDs and a database, which is attached for reference. > > Regards > > Andy > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter > Stanforth > Sent: 24 May 2012 15:59 > To: Nancy Bravin; Gabor Bajko; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [paws] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts > > Thanks for reminding me. We should also look at the latest Ofcom publication > that has a lot of discussion on master/slave requirements > > On ThuMay/24/12 Thu May 24, 4:16 AM, "Nancy Bravin" > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Gabor, Scott, and Raj, >> >> Has there been a comparison with the 3rd R & O as suggested earlier >> that affects the Draft and should be addressed now before we submit and >> discussion there of? >> I am not sure why things are so quiet, but it seems that would be a >> timely thing to do now. >> >> Sincerely, Nancy >> >> On May 23, 2012, at 5:39 PM, <[email protected]> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Sure. Adding (or putting back) a requirement on pre-configuration >>> shouldn't be a problem. We'll work out a requirement which all of us >>> is going to be happy with. >>> >>> In the meantime, I would like to ask more people to review the draft >>> and send comments to the list. As I mentioned in my previous mail, 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 >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: ext Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 10:17 AM >>> To: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley) >>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [paws] 2nd WGLC for >>> draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts >>> >>> I beg to differ slightly. >>> While preconfiguration is always possible, if we leave out the >>> requirement to support it, then we are likely to also leave such >>> configuration capabilities out of management models, etc. If it is >>> "always possible" then including it in the requirements seems >>> inexpensive. >>> >>> Yours, >>> Joel >>> >>> On 5/17/2012 12:01 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> <GB> pre-configuration is always possible. We don't need a separate >>>> requirement for it. >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> paws mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paws mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws > > _______________________________________________ > paws mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws > <Ofcom WSD regulatory requirements 20120517 (Clean).pdf> _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
