Option 2 makes sense to me because it conceptually organizes the spectrum into a profile and clearly groups the response into banded segments.
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Vincent Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > -- ---------------------------------- 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
