If this is a protocol for accessing white space why do we care. Besides The terms exclusive and non exclusive are much more appropriate. A " license" implies exclusivity, where as "unlicensed or license exempt" imply non exclusivity. The term licensed and unlicensed get juxtaposed too often to imply "paid for" and "free". The PAWS protocol should include enough information such that the access to the spectrum could be paid for. There is nothing that says White Space access has to be free.
From: Nancy Bravin <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:08:21 -0500 To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[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
