All,
I'd like to address this at the F2F as an open issue, though I think we are
mostly in agreement.
The only point of discussion seems to be how to represent the (lat, lon,
height) in the protocol messages.
1. In the interest of avoiding ambiguity in the "generic"
Device-to-Database protocol, it still seems
more precise for the device to report (only) the location of its
antenna's radiation center:
(lat, lon, height)
with associated uncertainties, etc, and where height is optional for
some types of devices.
That's the only relevant location when determining available spectrum. It
seems that that's
the intent of the FCC rules, even though the text does say "device
location".
2. We probably should allow automated GPS-reporting of the location of the
antenna's radiation
center. Since GPS cannot report height above ground, the protocol should
allow the height to be
entered as:
- Height relative to ground/surface (manually entered by installer)
- Height relative to mean sea level (reported by GPS)
A regulatory domain could restrict to be only one of these.
-vince
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 2:23 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes, I also think that separating the device location and antenna
> parameters is a good approach. This is what the requirements document
> requires too.****
>
> So, send the device’s (lon, lat, alt) location with related uncertainties
> and datum; and separately, the antenna parameters. The DB can then combine
> them, if it needs to, to provide the list of available channels.****
>
> ** **
>
> **- **Gabor ****
>
> ** **
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
