Vince I agree that the Device should not specify HAAT but we do need a parameter from the Device to pass information above and beyond Lat and Lon for example HAGL. The specific value in this triple will be defined by the Regulatory Authority. We can simple call it Height and identify that the required/expected value will be determined by the RA. Not sure I would say it is independent of the RA. It should be noted that the value should be present in the Registration but not necessary in the Get Channels.
John From: Vincent Chen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 05:24 PM To: Nancy Bravin <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [paws] PAWS Protocol: Should "Device location" really be "Antenna location"? 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
