Thanks Don, The in-progress draft has already changed the definition of "Slave" to match that in the use-case RFC, which does not reference geo-location capability.
Adding the optional slave location to the AVAIL_SPECTRUM_REQ seems to make sense. Ben. There is already support in PAWS to include both the Slave and Master's device descriptors. -vince On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Benjamin A. Rolfe <[email protected]>wrote: > There is a similar requirement, though not as explicitly stated, in the > FCC use case. A device not directly connected to the database works > through a connected device. For the connected ("master" in OfCom terms) to > provide the data to another, it must verify that the other device is > authorized. This can be done by having the connected device make a request > using the device identification information of the "slave". I realize > that I had *assumed* the protocol as drafted supported this, i.e. the > device making the request could fill in the ID information of another > device in the request. IF this is not true, then the protocol does not > support a very likely use case in the US. > > FWIW. > Ben > > > > On 10/17/2013 8:34 AM, Don Joslyn wrote: > > After reviewing several Ofcom TVWS operational requirements documents, > it is my current understanding that Ofcom operation in TVWS includes a use > case where the slave device’s location may be included in the available > spectrum request sent via the master device to the database. It appears > that the current PAWS protocol specification (version 6) does not support > inclusion of the slave device’s location as a parameter in requests, and > furthermore the PAWS specification assumes by slave definition that slave > devices are without geo-location capability.**** > > ** ** > > To support Ofcom’s use case that includes slave device location, I would > like to suggest that we consider adding an optional parameter for “Slave > Device Location”, and update the slave definition to support slave devices > that include geo-location capability. The new “Slave Device Location” > parameter could be added directly to the AVAIL_SPECTRUM_REQ message format, > or added via another ETSI-specific parameter.**** > > ** ** > > Thank you,**** > > Don**** > > > _______________________________________________ > paws mailing [email protected]https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
