It is those regulators again! Using FCC rules: Those two use cases may have similar architectures but as a DB provider I have to treat them very differently. Specifically rural is fixed to fixed and hotspot is mode 2 to mode 1 The messaging is different. The fixed device is required to register the mode 2 does not. The mode 2 has to validate the FCCid of its associated mode 1 devices. A fixed device does not validate the fixed slaves associated with it. A fixed slave, fixed master and mode 2 talk to the DB the mode 1 never does.
On Nov 6, 2012, at 9:32 AM, "Pete Resnick" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
