Subject: Re: [paws] I-D Action: draft-ietf-paws-protocol-08.txt

From: "Luzango Mfupe" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 18:22:02 +0200

Hi Vince, Don and the team,
 
I went through the latest draft it looks good however, I propose the
following two issues to be considered:
 
Section 5.4: Device Capability
I suggest that the device transmitting power should be added as an
option device capability parameter. For example, if a device
specifically inform the database about its transmitting power capability
during the avail_spectrum_req then the database should only return a
list of  available spectrum with powers relevant to that specific
request.
 
Section 6.8.9: Spectrum
I suggest in here we need a straightened-out example of how spectrum
and its resolutions are specified in the FCC case. The provided example
is either not clear enough or somehow something is missing specifically
for the FCC case. Please see the following excerpt from the current
provide example:
 
For example, In US, FCC requires only one spectrum specification at
6MHz bandwidth; ETSI requires two (at 0.1MHz and 8MHz).",
 
Kind Regards,
Luzango.

>>> Vincent Chen <[email-masked]> 17/01/2014 05:22 >>>
Don,

Thanks for the careful read!

Gabor, should I upload a new version with the fixes?

-vince

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Don Joslyn
<[email-masked]> wrote:

The new version looks good to me.
Please find feedback attached, just some minor nits.

Regards,
Don

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]]
Received: Tuesday, 14 Jan 2014, 3:10pm
To: [email-masked] [[email-masked]]; [email-masked] [[email-masked]]
Subject: Re: [paws] I-D Action: draft-ietf-paws-protocol-08.txt

Good, thanks Vince.

This draft incorporates the agreeable comments received during the
second wglc.

I’d like to ask people on the list to please review the set of changes
the editor implemented and let the list know if you have any comments.

If no comments received, I think the wg is done with the document and
it is ready to be forwarded to the IESG. I plan to do that next week, so
if you have
comments to the draft then please send those to the list during this
week.

Gabor

From: paws [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of ext Vincent Chen

Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:52 AM

To: [email-masked]

Subject: Re: [paws] I-D Action: draft-ietf-paws-protocol-08.txt

Gabor, All,

I've uploaded a new version of the draft incorporating the proposed
changes:

o Propose ruleset ID name for ETSI: ETSI-EN-301-598-1.0.0-draft 

o Change TBD email address to 
[email-masked] for proposing 

changes to the PAWS IANA registries 

o Moved discussion of required vCard properties to regulatory-specific
sections 

o Fixed vCard examples for organization names: Use "fn" property, but
set "kind" to "org". 

o Shorten parameter names: 

* freqHz -> hz 

* powerDbmPerBw -> dbm

Diff:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-paws-protocol-07&url2=draft-ietf-paws-protocol-08

-vince

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:48 AM, <[email-masked]> wrote:

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.

This draft is a work item of the Protocol to Access WS database Working
Group of the IETF.

Title : Protocol to Access White-Space (PAWS) Databases

Authors : Vincent Chen

Subir Das

Lei Zhu

John Malyar

Peter J. McCann

Filename : draft-ietf-paws-protocol-08.txt

Pages : 104

Date : 2014-01-14

Abstract:

Portions of the radio spectrum that are allocated to licensees are

available for non-interfering use. This available spectrum is called

"White Space." Allowing secondary users access to available spectrum

"unlocks" existing spectrum to maximize its utilization and to

provide opportunities for innovation, resulting in greater overall

spectrum utilization.

One approach to manage spectrum sharing uses databases to report

spectrum availability to devices. To achieve interoperability among

multiple devices and databases, a standardized protocol must be

defined and implemented. This document defines such a protocol, the

"Protocol to Access White Space (PAWS) Databases".

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-paws-protocol/

There's also a htmlized version available at:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-paws-protocol-08

A diff from the previous version is available at:

http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-paws-protocol-08

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
submission

until the htmlized version and diff are available at 
tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:

ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________

paws mailing list

[email-masked]

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws

-- 

-vince

Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)

-- 
-vince 

-- 
This message is subject to the CSIR's copyright terms and conditions, e-mail legal notice, and implemented Open Document Format (ODF) standard. 
The full disclaimer details can be found at http://www.csir.co.za/disclaimer.html.

This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, 
and is believed to be clean.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

---

From: Vincent Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 13:00:00 -0800

Hi Luzango,

Thanks for the suggestions. Please find answers inline.

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Luzango Mfupe <[email-masked]> wrote:

> *Section 5.4: Device Capability*
> I suggest that the device transmitting power should be added as an option
> device capability parameter. For example, if a device specifically inform
> the database about its transmitting power capability during the
> avail_spectrum_req then the database should only return a list of
>  available spectrum with powers relevant to that specific request.
>

I think this has been suggested before.
Currently, power capabilities are captured via device certification (e.g.,
"device type" in the US, combinations of "device type", "emissions class",
"technology ID" for ETSI),
so the available spectrum response must rely on those regulatory-specific
attributes, rather than a separate power-level field.

The PAWS specification does allow additional fields to be added later, so
this might be a case of waiting for an actual use case.

>
> *Section 6.8.9: Spectrum*
> I suggest in here we need a straightened-out example of how spectrum and
> its resolutions are specified in the FCC case. The provided example is
> either not clear enough or somehow something is missing specifically for
> the FCC case. Please see the following excerpt from the current provide
> example:
>
> For example, *In US, FCC requires only one spectrum specification at 6MHz
> bandwidth;* ETSI requires two (at 0.1MHz and 8MHz).",
>

That sounds like a good idea. I'll add an example along with more
explanation for the examples.
(See also example in Section 6.4.2)

> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Don Joslyn <[email-masked]>wrote:
>
>> This draft incorporates the agreeable comments received during the second
>> wglc.
>>
>> If no comments received, I think the wg is done with the document and it
>> is ready to be forwarded to the IESG. I plan to do that next week, so if
>> you have
>> comments to the draft then please send those to the list during this week.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gabor
>>
>>
>>
>> o Fixed vCard examples for organization names: Use "fn" property, but set
>> "kind" to "org".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> This message is subject to the CSIR's copyright terms and conditions,
> e-mail legal notice, and implemented Open Document Format (ODF) standard.
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
> *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>,

-- 
-vince

---

From: "Luzango Mfupe" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:41:04 +0200

Hi Vince,
 
Okay great, I agree, examples in Sections 6.4.2, 6.5.2, 6.6.1 and 6.8.9
needs more explanation.
 
Regards,
Luzango.

>>> Vincent Chen <[email-masked]> 29/01/2014 23:00 >>>
Hi Luzango,

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Luzango Mfupe <[email-masked]>
wrote:

I think this has been suggested before.
Currently, power capabilities are captured via device certification
(e.g., "device type" in the US, combinations of "device type",
"emissions class", "technology ID" for ETSI),
so the available spectrum response must rely on those
regulatory-specific attributes, rather than a separate power-level
field.

The PAWS specification does allow additional fields to be added later,
so this might be a case of waiting for an actual use case.

Section 6.8.9: Spectrum

Kind Regards,
Luzango.

Don, 

-vince

Regards,
Don 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]]
Received: Tuesday, 14 Jan 2014, 3:10pm
To: [email-masked] [[email-masked]]; [email-masked] [[email-masked]]
Subject: Re: [paws] I-D Action: draft-ietf-paws-protocol-08.txt

Good, thanks Vince.

Gabor

To: [email-masked]

Gabor, All,

* freqHz -> hz 

* powerDbmPerBw -> dbm

Diff:

-vince

Authors : Vincent Chen

Subir Das

Lei Zhu

John Malyar

Peter J. McCann

Pages : 104

Date : 2014-01-14

Abstract:

spectrum utilization.

paws mailing list

[email-masked]

-- 

-vince

-- 
-vince 

-- 
This message is subject to the CSIR's copyright terms and conditions,
e-mail legal notice, and implemented Open Document Format (ODF)
standard. 
The full disclaimer details can be found at
http://www.csir.co.za/disclaimer.html. 

This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
MailScanner
( http://www.mailscanner.info/) , 
and is believed to be clean. 

-- 
-vince 

-- 
This message is subject to the CSIR's copyright terms and conditions,
e-mail legal notice, and implemented Open Document Format (ODF)
standard. 
The full disclaimer details can be found at
http://www.csir.co.za/disclaimer.html. 

This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
MailScanner
( http://www.mailscanner.info/) , 
and is believed to be clean.