Teco, Jussi, Nancy, (Scott, Raj) I agree with your sentiment but in addition to the use of the term licence-exempt I also have a problem with primary and secondary. Primary and secondary (and tertiary) services have a particular meaning in ITU in relation to spectrum allocations, and we are giving the words a different meaning here in relation to users. When this PAWS protocol is later applied to non-TV bands, it might be radar (say) that is the primary use and fixed links or mobile (say) that is the secondary use, in ITU regulations. This will then conflict with calling white space operation secondary. How about this re-write of the abstract, considering "use" instead of "user" and avoiding "primary" and "secondary":
Portions of the radio spectrum that are allocated to a particular use but are unused or unoccupied at specific locations and times are defined as "white space". The concept of allowing additional transmissions (which may or may not be licensed) in white space is a technique to "unlock" existing spectrum for new use. An obvious requirement is that these additional transmissions do not interfere with the allocated use of the spectrum. One approach to using the white space spectrum at a given time and location is to verify with a database for available channels. This document describes the concept of TV White Spaces. It also describes the problems that need to be addressed to enable white space spectrum for additional uses, without causing interference to currently allocated use, by querying a database which knows the channel availability at any given location and time. A number of possible use cases of white space spectrum and derived requirements are also described. The parts of the Introduction etc from which this Abstract was originally derived will also need to be updated to match. Regards Andy -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Teco Boot Sent: 27 January 2012 09:07 To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [paws] re proposed edits on rev 2 I suggest we keep our documents agnostic on exact specifications for this kind of terminology. The Rapid deployed network for emergency scenario says "free or freed spectrum". We can do a lot more with the protocol than just TVWS, or TVWS in country xx. Teco Op 27 jan. 2012, om 09:18 heeft <[email protected]> <[email protected]> het volgende geschreven: > Dear Nancy, > > My understanding is that 'unlicensed' is used in North America and > 'licence-exempt' in the UK. They do refer to the same thing, I think, so one > could say (licensed, unlicensed/licence-exempt). > > Kind regards, > Jussi > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of ext Nancy Bravin > Sent: 27 January 2012 06:08 > To: Probasco Scott (Nokia-CIC/Dallas) > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [paws] re proposed edits on rev 2 > > Dear Scott, Raj, and all, > > Abstract > > Portions of the radio spectrum that are allocated to a licensed, > primary user but are unused or unoccupied at specific locations and > times are defined as "white space". The concept of allowing > secondary transmissions (licensed or unlicensed) in white space is a > technique to "unlock" existing spectrum for new use. > I would change (licensed or unlicensed) to: (licensed, licensed exempt or > unlicensed) as some countries have 3 categories. > Also, license exempt is mentioned in section 4.4 > > > SIncerely, Nancy > _______________________________________________ > paws mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
