Actually, worded in this fashion, the location becomes OPTIONAL, since a slave's location may not be available.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Vincent Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > Good suggestion. Thanks! > > -vince > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Sungjin Yoo <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Vince, >> >> I suggest to modify 4.4.1 AVAIL_SPECTRUM_REQ as follows to add slave >> location. >> >> <original> >> location: The GeoLocation (Section 5.1) for *the Master Device* is >> REQUIRED. The location SHOULD be the current location of the >> Device, but more precisely, the location of the radiation center >> of the Device’s antenna. When the request is made by the Master >> Device on behalf of a Slave Device, the location is that of the >> *Master Device*. Depending on the regulatory domain, the location >> MAY be an anticipated position of the Device to support mobile >> devices. If the location specifies a region, rather than a point, >> the Database MAY return an error with the UNIMPLEMENTED (Table 1) >> code, if it does not support query by region. >> >> <modified> >> location: The GeoLocation (Section 5.1) for *the Device* is >> REQUIRED. The location SHOULD be the current location of the >> Device, but more precisely, the location of the radiation center >> of the Device’s antenna. When the request is made by the Master >> Device on behalf of a Slave Device, the location is that of the >> *Slave Device*. Depending on the regulatory domain, the location >> MAY be an anticipated position of the Device to support mobile >> devices. If the location specifies a region, rather than a point, >> the Database MAY return an error with the UNIMPLEMENTED (Table 1) >> code, if it does not support query by region. >> >> >> And I suggest to add the following parameter. >> >> <new parameter> >> masterDeviceLocation: Depending on regulatory rules, when the request is >> made by the Master Device on behalf of a Slave Device, the Master >> Device MAY be required to provide its own location. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Sungjin >> >> >> >> On 10/18/2013 05:34 PM, Vincent Chen wrote: >> >> Ray, >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Ray Bellis <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> On 17 Oct 2013, at 18:50, Don Joslyn <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Vince, >>> >>> In addition, It’s my current understanding that Ofcom requires slave >>> devices to report “Channel Usage”. In PAWS it would be accomplished via >>> master device sending a SPECTRUM_USE_NOTIFY on behalf of the slave device. >>> We might need to add slave device location to that message, or indicate >>> that the location parameter contains the slave device’s location whenever >>> etsiEnDeviceCategory is equal to “slave”. Does that make sense? >>> >>> >>> "Channel Usage" is only required for slaves operating above 0 dBm EIRP >>> / 8 MHz. >>> >>> However all masters are required to report "data parameters" (e.g. >>> device identifier, emission class, location [optionally]) for every >>> connected slave. >>> >> >> Yes, both of these are already supported in the draft. >> As Don suggested the optional slave location will be added. >> >> Thanks. >> >> >>> >>> Ray >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> -vince >> >> >> > > > -- > -vince > -- -vince
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
