>>> 1. It would seem to me computationally intensive on the part of the >>> regulator to compute a geometry/contour to determine which frequencies >>> are available. As much as I would be worried about a single request, I >>> don't see why regulators would want to take such aggregate load. Has a >>> regulator agreed to do so? Or am I wrong about the computation? >> The database does the computation. The contour calculations can be done in >> advance, but would have to change as protected primary users change their >> use. The database operation locates the device within the set of >> precalculated protected contours to determine which ones reduce the spectrum >> available to the whitespace device. > > Ok, so the issue here is the data capacity requirements, in terms of why > the calculation is done by the database and not by the (master) Device? The database is big. The contour calculation is hard to get right and its an expensive calculation involving a large, accurate topology (height) dataset. It’s really important that two devices that query from the same place at the same time get the same spectrum to use, so the regulator carefully checks to make sure all the databases get the same answers to the same question. Much harder.
>> >>> 2. Much of this seems to be predicated on micro-auctions in secondary >>> spectrum. Interesting idea and worth pursuing, however, the one week >>> period below seems to lead us to question what "micro" means in this >>> context. See below for that >> You are incorrect. All secondary users (whitespace devices) in the same >> location get the same spectrum availability. There is no mechanism to >> allocate or share that available spectrum. There is some desire to provide >> that kind of service, but it is beyond our charter. > > Why then provide DeviceOwner if all secondary users are treated the > same? That's how I leapt to my conclusion. Also see below. So an interfering device can be located and turned off. >>> Moreover, there seems to have been an arbitrary period of time chosen (1 >>> week). Why not state that in terms of the EventTime in AVAIL_SPECTRUM_RESP? >> Again, this is the frequency at which the listing service must be requeried, >> not the database. The frequency is normally set by the regulatory domain, >> and devices have to be built for one or more regulatory domains. It’s much >> less often than the spectrum query. This basically determines how quickly a >> regulator can de-authorize a database. > > Got it. Question: what happens if the database that authorized a device > to use a frequency with some parameters is de-authorized before > EventTime has expired? Must the device submit a new request? Is that > something that would be contained within a RuleSet (e.g., external)? Time scales work. The spectrum use expiration is a day or less. The database expiration is a week or less. It works. Brian _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
