Well said, I agree…thanks Nancy Nancy Bravin
[email protected] [email protected] On Oct 11, 2012, at 2:24 PM, Vincent Chen wrote: > Thanks All, > > So what I hear is that trying to re-use a standard that describes location as > (latitude, longitude, altitude) is probably not a good idea. > > To focus specifically on the discussion of height: > > - Whether protection should be computed using a device's HAAT is a > regulatory rule. As such, the Database should be responsible to applying the > right rules (including how to compute HAAT). We should not be burdening a > device with those. > > For the PAWS protocol, we should define height in a way that is easy for the > device to determine by itself (or by an installer), independent of regulatory > specifics. There appears to me two options we should support: > 1. Height above (relative to) mean sea level, as can be reported by a GPS, > or > 2. Height above ground (or sea in case of a bridge) that can be determined > by direct measurement or engineering drawings > > For the first, we could specify WGS84. If WGS were to change in the future, > how much difference would we expect? Probably won't actually make a > difference in protection or available spectrum computations... > > In the case of a bridge or ship, I claim one of the above will do. How to > compute available channels is a regulatory rule whose enforcement belongs in > the Database. > It should not impact the PAWS protocol. > > I would hope that one of the goals of a standard is: > - Establish reasonably flexible parameter set without going "overboard" (pun > intended). I think we should present a model around which regulators could > align, rather than encourage each to come up with completely new rules. > > Thoughts? > > -vince
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
