What about this: “The Data Model MUST support specifying a list of available channels. The Data Model MUST support specification of this information by start and stop frequencies, or equivalents such as center frequencies with channel width or channel numbers with channel nummer allocation scheme . The Data Model MUST support a channel availability schedule and maximum power level for each channel in the list.”
More thoughts on channel numbers: we likely run into problems in bands without a channel numbering scheme, or for example sub channels in TV bands. Teco Op 10 aug. 2012, om 13:57 heeft Rosen, Brian het volgende geschreven: > <as individual> > While I don't care if it's center and width or upper/lower, I do think we > will define the format in the protocol for interoperability reasons, but > don't need to do that in requirements. It wouldn't hurt to decide now and > use consistent terms, but we don't need to. > > I think "band" won't work, as it usually implies a much wider piece of > spectrum that has a common purpose. The TV Band is all the channels. > > > On Aug 10, 2012, at 2:37 AM, Teco Boot <[email protected]> wrote: > >> (somewhat late response) >> >> A center frequency and channel width is functional equivalent to start/stop >> frequencies. So is channel number, with ref to channel number assignment >> scheme. For a requirements document, we just need to specify what is needed. >> How it is encoded (Hz, wave length, channel ID) is solution space. >> >> Seen our goal to make PAWS somewhat universal (not limited to US TVWS), I do >> not prefer using channel numbers. >> >> Teco >> >> >> Op 9 aug. 2012, om 21:55 heeft <[email protected]> >> <[email protected]> het volgende geschreven: >> >>> Folks, >>> >>> During the last F2F meeting, there was an agreement to make a slight update >>> to requirement D.7 in >>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-06.txt, >>> to make channel numbers optional to be supported. Ie, change the current D.7 >>> “The Data Model MUST support specifying a list of available channels. The >>> Data Model MUST support specification of this information by channel >>> numbers and by start and stop frequencies. The Data Model MUST support a >>> channel availability schedule and maximum power level for each channel in >>> the list.” >>> to >>> “The Data Model MUST support specifying a list of available channels. The >>> Data Model MUST support specification of this information by start and stop >>> frequencies and MAY include channel numbers. The Data Model MUST support a >>> channel availability schedule and maximum power level for each channel in >>> the list.” >>> >>> I’d like to confirm this change on the list. If anyone has any objections, >>> let me know. Otherwise I’ll plan to send the document to the iesg after >>> this change is implemented. >>> >>> - Gabor >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
