Gabor, I thought this was a no-negatives review;-) I read through the doc last night and could only find irrelevant nits to carp about. You've done a good job of getting the 'how' issues out of the way of the 'what' ones.
On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 21:57 +0000, [email protected] wrote: > Thanks Tony for generating this new version of the document. The > overlapping use cases have been merged, a new use case has been added > and the language was cleaned up throughout the document. > > I would like to ask people to review it and send to the list any > issues. So far we got feedback from Nancy (thanks!), this new revision > captures her comments. But I would like to hear from others as well, > before we ask the AD to review it again. It only takes 10-15min to > review. > > If we do not hear any concerns or objections from anyone until next > Monday (Jan 14th), we’ll assume the group is fine with the document > and we’ll ask for the AD review. > > > > Thanks, Gabor > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of ext Pete Resnick > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 5:03 PM > To: Anthony Mancuso > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [paws] Fwd: I-D Action: > draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-09.txt > > > > > Tony, > > Thanks for the new version. At first glance, it looks like a good > edit. I'll do a thorough review once the WG confirms that this one is > good to go. > > Chairs, let me know when this has had enough review. I'd especially > like to hear from folks like Peter Stanforth and others who had > concerns that my suggestions might have removed too much from the > document. Does this version satisfy everyone? > > Thanks for giving this a go, and a happy new year to everyone. > > pr > > On 12/21/12 12:39 PM, Anthony Mancuso wrote: > > PAWS list members, > > > > > > I just submitted a new version of the PAWS Use Cases & Requirements > doc for review and discussion. > > > > > > The latest draft (v. 09): > > > * incorporates the suggestions contained in the post by Pete > Resnick, AD, which included, among other things, > recommendation to coordinate architecturally-and > protocol-common use cases > * adds a new use case (local TV broadcast) > * Deleted security threat 5 and added language to security > considerations to match the protocol security considerations > that have evolved in the WG > * Clarified protocol normative requirement 6.3 to: "The protocol > MUST support determination of regulatory domain governing its > current location." > * Cleaned up language and usage: > consistent use of primary, secondary users > > > changed "channel" availability references to "spectrum" availability > where appropriate > > > deleted references specific to TV band and generalized these to radio > spectrum > > > changed references to regulatory domain to rule set of regulatory > domain as appropriate to clarify that the latter controls device > behavior regardless of country (Brazil adopts US "FccWhitespace2010" > rule set) > > > cleaned up language and syntax throughout > > > Thanks for any feedback, > > > > > > Tony Mancuso > > > > > > > > -- > 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
