Thanks Gabor. I used your text (but noticed that it should reference
preceding steps 1-2, not 1-3, as I originally wrote).:

"Optionally, and in place of steps 1-2 above, the master device can be
pre-configured with the address (e.g., URI) of one or more trusted
databases. The master device can establish contact with one of these
trusted databases."

I also made a change based on a comment from Pete Resnick. I assume from
your email that I should not post a new version 14 (with the two most
recent changes) until after the Feb21 telechat?

Tony


On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 6:15 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:

> I went through the changes in the draft (thanks Pete for posting the diff
> which helps identifying the changes!), and even though there are a lot of
> changes, they are mostly rewordings, text rearrangements and removal of
> redundancies.
> The only one issue I found was with the last paragraph of section 3.2,
> which after rewording became odd. I would suggest replacing it with
> "Optionally, and in place of steps 1-3 above, the master device can be
> pre-configured with the address (eg, URI) of one or more trusted
> databases." This change can be done together with any additional
> resolutions to resolve any iesg comments. I would suggest this draft is
> taken to the iesg on the Feb21 telechat.
>
> Thanks Pete, Tony and all of you who contributed to it,
> - Gabor
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> ext Pete Resnick
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 8:13 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [paws] I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-13.txt
>
> Folks,
>
> Many thanks to Tony for working through all of the Last Call comments and
> posting this new draft. I'm in the process of getting everything ready for
> it being on next week's IESG Telechat (Feb 21) for evaluation.
> However, there were a *bunch* of changes between this version (-13) and
> the last (-12). While I will go ahead with this draft, I'd like folks in
> the WG to review the changes and make sure everything is still in line with
> WG consensus. If there are concerns, the chairs can always let me know and
> I can postpone it for the next telechat (unusually in only 1 additional
> week due to scheduling weirdnesses, Feb 28). But unless I hear differently,
> I'm going to assume that this is as desired.
>
> The diff tool didn't do a good job of figuring out the differences because
> Tony re-arranged some parts of section 5 to earlier in the document. I've
> made a re-arranged copy of -12 that will compare better with -13 and put it
> on my own web site. To see the diff, try this:
>
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=http://resnick1.qualcomm.com/draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-12-pr.txt&url2=draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-13.txt
>
> I hope that helps.
>
> pr
>
> On 2/14/13 5:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> >   This draft is a work item of the Protocol to Access WS database
> Working Group of the IETF.
> >
> >       Title           : Protocol to Access White Space (PAWS) Database:
> Use Cases and Requirements
> >       Author(s)       : Anthony Mancuso
> >                            Scott Probasco
> >                            Basavaraj Patil
> >       Filename        :
> draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-13.txt
> >       Pages           : 23
> >       Date            : 2013-02-14
> >
> > Abstract:
> >     Portions of the radio spectrum that are assigned to a particular use
> >     but are unused or unoccupied at specific locations and times are
> >     defined as "white space."  The concept of allowing additional
> >     transmissions (which may or may not be licensed) in white space is a
> >     technique to "unlock" existing spectrum for new use.  This document
> >     includes the problem statement for the development of a protocol to
> >     access a database of whitespace information followed by use cases and
> >     requirements for that protocol.  Finally, requirements associated
> >     with the protocol are presented.
> >
> >
> >
> > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases
> > -rqmts
> >
> > There's also a htmlized version available at:
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts
> > -13
> >
> > A diff from the previous version is available at:
> > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases
> > -rqmts-13
> >
> >
> > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > paws mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
> >
>
> --
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws

Reply via email to