Hi,
Please find few comments based on my review of the new draft spec: 1. In AVAIL_SPECTRUM_REQ all parameters are shown optional. Does that mean an empty request is ok? As 'Device descriptor' is required in response, same should be the case in request too. Also instead of 'location' and 'Master Device location', it will be better to include 'location' and an optional 'Slave Device location' in case request is on behave of slave, as Master is the default request entity. Avail spectrum request can also include an optional time range, so that database can send a filtered and useful set of spectrum for the given time range, than the full set. 2. In SPECTRUM_USE_NOTIFY message 'spectra:list' parameter can include the time range which the device intend to use the spectra, to improve QoS and avoid too many request/response messages between master and database 3. Diagram in Section 4.5, which shows messages between master and device can use different message tokens than the tokens used between master and database. Which will make it explicitly clear that they are not the same. 4. Section 5.2 Device Descriptor can include a parameter to specify 'Mobile' or 'Fixed' device 5. Section 5.4 Device Capabilities can include Power Range of the device too. 6. Section 5.9 "The SpectrumSpec element encapsulates the schedule of available spectrum for a regulatory domain". Should this also include a specific location area? As a regulatory domain may include a large location coverage, and reuse of licensed spectrum in different locations. Is there a need of location area coverage parameter in the device descriptor? 7. Section 5.17 - Error codes. As the PAWS protocol is over HTTPS, not using the same(HTTP) 1xx, 2xx, 3xx status codes looks like a better option. Use of another range or 4/2 digit codes will avoid confusion. Best Regards, Sajeev From: paws [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 3:10 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [paws] wglc on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-paws-protocol/ The editor posted the new draft, version -07. I'd like to issue another wg last call on the document. We need reviews and feedback in order to be able to progress the document. Please read through the draft and send any comments you may have to the list in the next 2-3 weeks. If you review the draft and have no comments, send a note to the list that the draft is good as it is, we need these notes as much as we need the actual comments. Without a minimum number of reviews the document won't make progress towards publication. If you care about it, read it please. Thanks, Gabor
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
