Hello Juan Carlos, Thank you for reviewing the draft and providing comments. I have addressed each of your comments, please see below (MSP->) for further information.
Kind Regards, Scott From: Juan Zuniga <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:17:19 -0400 To: Gabor Bajko <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [paws] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts Gabor, all, I have reviewed the document and I think it is in very good shape. These are some minor comments I have: Abstract Even though TV bands are currently the primary applications for PAWS, the protocol could be applicable to other bands. Hence, I would suggest removing “TV” from the second paragraph of the Abstract. MSP->This section has received some changes based on comments from Subir. "TV" is still in the abstract, but in a lower priority. Recall that we had discussion on the email reflector whether to remove 'TV' or not, with the result that many instances were removed, but some remain. Section 1.1 Multiple examples are provided throughout this section. Some are inside parenthesis, some are preceded by “e.g.” and some are not. I would suggest keeping a common writing style when providing these examples. Replace “…such as antenna height, and sometimes power.” by “…such as antenna height and power.” MSP->Agree, made the changes to the section. Section 1.2.1 Replace “…basic service in TV white space.” by “…basic service in white spaces.” (or alternatively “…basic service in white space frequencies.”) MSP->Agree, made the change. Section 6.1 P.5 and P.6 could be combined into one single requirement with some wording similar to the one used in P.7, e.g. “The messages sent by the master device and database MUST support integrity protection.” MSP->Agree, combined P.5 and P.5 Section 6.2 I believe there is a preposition missing in O.5: “The master device MUST obtain an indication ‘about’ the regulatory domain governing operation…” MSP->Agree, made the change. Regards, Juan Carlos From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 11:40 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [paws] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts Folks, I issued the below 2nd wglc on http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-04.txt and I only got one review with a comment which is easy to address. We really need more reviews in order to be able to progress the draft. If you care about the use cases and requirements related to White Space Database Access, please read the draft and send your comments to the list. If you do not have comments, then 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. I cannot send the draft to the IESG without a minimum number of reviews. Ie, if we don’t get reviews, we can’t make progress. Thanks, Gabor From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley) Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 5:50 PM To: [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]]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
