Hi Nancy,
I think you misunderstood the intention of my comment regarding
"merging". See inline:
On 11/2/12 5:54 PM, Nancy Bravin wrote:
I will take exception to merging technologies:
The blending of all or any similar groups that participated in this
effort or were considered from IEEE802. I.e. 22, 11, 16. 15 white
space groups.
What what done by people from all groups was to be concerned about the
"consumer" as well as industry for different locations globally where
WS devices can be used.
Would it be cheaper to have one type? At what cost…the very people
that are in other countries,
that are not under the FCC/Ofcom type structure of Regulations/Devices
types? Isn't what you have advised against by not mentioning
regulators etc in the protocol?
I am *not* suggesting merging the technologies themselves. Of course
that's not something that the IETF can do anything about at all. All I
was suggesting was that in the list of use cases in the document, we
might be able to combine a few of the technologies into one section of
the document where those technologies have a lot in common. The problem
is not the number of technologies; it's fine to mention them all. It's
just that there is a lot of duplicated information in the descriptions,
and I think it would make the document clearer to group a few of them
together. For example, the hotspot example in 4.2.1 and the
wide-area/rural example in 4.2.2 have almost identical architectures, so
I think we might be able to mention both use cases in one section.
I'm sorry if I confused the issue by using the word "merging". I was not
referring to the technologies. I only meant that we could mention
multiple technologies in a single section of the use cases document when
it makes sense to group them together.
Does that make sense?
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
