Maintainers of the document, please check my text on "free" and "freed" in use case 4.7. I'm not native english speaker. I meant "free" as "unused", and "freed" as "now unused".
On terminology: there are endless possibilities: "paid, unused", "free of charge but licensed", "licensed, but non-exclusive" etc etc. Teco Op 27 jan. 2012, om 14:11 heeft Peter Stanforth het volgende geschreven: > 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]> > Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:08:21 -0500 > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[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
