All, At the meeting in Orlando we discussed a device update function (or kill switch, or PUSH). This arises from the UK regulatory requirement that a database should be able to contact any device within a short time. After review of PAWS use case document with regards to this, I think our UK requirement is neatly captured in requirement P.16 "The protocol MUST support the capability for the database to inform master devices of changes to spectrum availability information"
This requirement is already part of the current draft of the ETSI Harmonised
Standard. Its main elements are summarised below, and the full text is
attached:
+++++++++++
DEFINITION
The master WSD update is the process by which a database informs a master WSD
that its operational parameters, and those of the slave WSDs attached it, are
still valid or are no longer valid
REQUIREMENTS
- A master WSD shall support WSD update function. For this, a master WSD
shall either
*be able to receive an update from the Controller Database WSDB within
Tping seconds (push update), or
*send an update request to the Controller Database WSDB every Tping
seconds (pull update).
- A master WSD shall support a Tping value of [60] seconds or higher.
- A master WSD shall cease transmission, and shall instruct the slaves attached
to it to cease transmission, if it receives update from the WSDB that the
operational parameters are no longer valid.
- A master WSD shall cease transmission, and shall instruct the slaves attached
to it to cease transmission, if it loses connection with the WSDB
++++++++++
It is worth signalling that, at least among UK stakeholders, there is wide
support for the pull method and little support for the push method. This is
consistent with the view that it will be very difficult to implement the push
functionality over the internet.
As a first step, I would like to ask the PAWS WG to consider support for this
functionality in the specification. Secondly, it would be good to have views of
how a pull mechanism could be implemented in the PAWS protocol. We have had
early discussions about this off-line, and I think the alternatives are 1) to
adapt one of the existing procedures (SPECTRUM_USE_NOTIFY and "Device
Validation" are possible candidates), and 2) create a new, dedicated procedure.
Thanks and regards,
Cesar
________________________________
******************************************************************************************************************
For more information visit www.ofcom.org.uk
This email (and any attachments) is confidential and intended for the use of
the addressee only.
If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the
message and delete it from your system.
This email has been scanned for viruses. However, you open any attachments at
your own risk.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and do
not represent the views or opinions of Ofcom unless expressly stated otherwise.
******************************************************************************************************************
EN301598v0018_MasterWSDupdate.docx
Description: EN301598v0018_MasterWSDupdate.docx
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
