Mike, Ah, good point. To support responses for multiple rulesets requires additional layering of the response.
This seems to be a relatively slight modification to the AVAIL_SPECTRUM_RESP (and associated batch response) to have a list of (rulesetInfo, SpectrumSchedule list) objects. Does that sound right? All, should I update the response message to support this? -vince On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:44 AM, Michael Head <[email protected]> wrote: > From my reading, a device can only get information about spectrum under a > single ruleset at a time. (I suppose there is one way around this if a > device opts to skip the Init operation and the database opts not to include > the rulesetInfo in the AvailSpectrumResp, but that doesn't seem to be in > the spirit of the protocol). > > Now, there may be multiple rulesets that govern a particular location. For > example, in disputed territories where two governments claim authority (or > even just near an undisputed border, the device may want/need to know the > spectrum available on both sides of the border). > > Even within a particular domain, there may be different rulesets governing > different shared spectrum bands (TVWS vs. 3.5 ghz or 5ghz bands). Devices > might be built to support both and may need to consult a database to get > information about all bands. > > What should devices and databases do? I suppose it can be done by having > the device send multiple, independent querys. In the first case, it would > send a spectrum request with a DeviceDescriptor with a restricted set of > ruleset ids to cover the regulatory domains it cares about (but then, how > would it know which domains are useful at a given lat/lon?). For the second > case, the device could fire separate requests with DeviceCapabilities set > to cover the different bands it supports, which seems a little more > workable. Still, it would be nice if these could be handled in a single > request/response. > > Furthermore, certain databases might want to give additional information > about spectrum at a location, but the spec doesn't have a standard way of > allowing for that. Of course, the database is free to add any fields, > anywhere it likes, but it would be nice if there were a structured way to > allow a PAWS response to include independent spectrum reports. > > -- mike > > > -- > ---------------------------------- > Michael R Head <[email protected]> > http://www.cs.binghamton.edu/~mike > +1-201-BLISTER > > _______________________________________________ > paws mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws > > -- -vince
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
