With slight modification to Option 2. Repeating both below:
- Option 1: List of (startHz, startPower, stopHz, stopPower)
- Option 2: Ordered list of list of (freqHz, power)
^^^^^^^
I prefer Option 2, as described above.
-vince
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 3:13 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ray,****
>
> Could you elaborate on this point:****
>
> **Ø **What I don't want to see is that break _within_ the band getting
> conflated with breaks _between_ bands.****
>
> ** **
>
> This is the only issue which we do not have consensus and prevents the
> editor to submit an updated version of the draft.****
>
> We do seem to have consensus that the current encoding in the draft has to
> be updated, as with the current encoding it is not possible to specify the
> power levels for unavailable ranges.****
>
> ** **
>
> What we do not have consensus on is on the options below:****
>
> - Option 1: List of (startHz, startPower, stopHz, stopPower)****
>
> - Option 2: Ordered list of (freqHz, power)****
>
> ** **
>
> So far we have few people speaking for either of the options. ****
>
> We need to agree on this asap and move forward, so please send a mail to
> the list and indicate whether you are ok with either option, or you feel
> strongly for one or the other.****
>
> ** **
>
> **- **gabor****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf
> Of *ext Ray Bellis
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 17, 2013 2:08 AM
> *To:* Paul Lambert
>
> *Cc:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [paws] Encoding of spectrum profile****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On 17 Sep 2013, at 09:33, Paul Lambert <[email protected]>****
>
> wrote:****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> Yes – I feel it's important to retain a definition and identification of
> the channels.****
>
> ** **
>
> Can you elaborate on why you feel that's important? Why does a device
> "care" about the fact that the US TV band is split into four discrete bands
> - surely all that matters is the specific frequencies it's permitted to use?
> ****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> I may not be fully understanding your notion of a discontinuity within a
> band. I'd typically assume that system need well defined channels within a
> band that each could be also given masks that might vary depending on
> adjacency considerations. ****
>
> ** **
>
> In the OFCOM model channel 38 will not be available for _primary_
> transmission, but AIUI a very small amount of adjacent channel leakage into
> it will be permitted. ****
>
> ** **
>
> The OFCOM / ETSI model doesn't need (or want) masks to be encoded within
> the messages for that channel, they're implicit in the device approval
> requirements.****
>
> ** **
>
> To further reduce the adjacent channel leakage the permitted power levels
> (for certain WSD emission classes) for primary transmissions in the
> adjacent channels are also reduced.****
>
> ** **
>
> That frequency is therefore simply omitted from the list of available
> channels. What I don't want to see is that break _within_ the band getting
> conflated with breaks _between_ bands.****
>
> ** **
>
> Ray****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
