Thanks Teco, I will include this change. Kind Regards, Scott
On 1/27/12 9:13 AM, "ext Teco Boot" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi Scott, > >I'm fine with your proposal. >Make section 4 multi-level and reword "use case" in the two protocol >service sections? > >Thanks, Teco > > >Op 27 jan. 2012, om 15:38 heeft <[email protected]> ><[email protected]> het volgende geschreven: > >> Hi Teco, >> >> I agree with you that "TVWS database discovery" and "Device registration >> with trusted Database" are aspects of the protocol, perhaps services, >> rather than use cases. However since these topics are describing >> capability required from the protocol, placing them in a section titled >> "Problem Statement" could also be unclear. >> >> If we change the title of section 4 to "Use cases and protocol services" >> would this be acceptable? >> >> Kind Regards, >> Scott >> >> >> >> On 1/27/12 3:13 AM, "ext Teco Boot" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Scott, >>> >>> IMHO the first 2 use cases "TVWS database discovery" and "Device >>> registration with trusted Database" are not real use cases, but >>> aspects of the protocol. Text says "prerequisite to other use cases". >>> >>> They could move to the Problem Statement section and combine >>> text. There is already a "5.2. Database discovery". The other section >>> would need a "5.x Device registration with trusted Database". >>> >>> Teco >>> >>> >>> >>> Op 27 jan. 2012, om 00:42 heeft <[email protected]> >>> <[email protected]> het volgende geschreven: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Revision 2 of the PS, Use cases and requirements I-D has been posted. >>>> Please see: >>>> >>>> >>>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecas >>>>es >>>> -rqmts-02.txt >>>> >>>> This version only includes changes requested by the co-chair in his >>>> email of January 12 >>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/paws/current/msg00516.html >>>> Specifically: >>>> " >>>>> 2. requirements. In the last f2f >>>>> we agreed to modify requirement D.1 to include the suggestions from >>>>> slide 7-10 ofhttp://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-2.pdf and >>>>> merge with D.6 and D.9 >>>>> slides 7&8 of http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-1.pdf >>>>> also contain suggestions on how to revise this requirement. >>>>> Agreed to revise requirement D.2 as suggested in slide 11 of >>>>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-2.pdfand slide 9 of >>>>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-1.pdf >>>>> We seem to have agreed with the reformulation suggested to D.3 in >>>>> slide 12 ofhttp://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-2.pdf, but >>>>>we >>>>> did not agree on the format the location would be represented in. The >>>>> data format part is still open, but as this piece does not really >>>>> belong to requirements but rather the data model spec, we are not in >>>>>a >>>>> hurry to decide it. >>>>> Delete d.4 >>>>> D.5: augment with lower/upper frequencies and time of availability, >>>>>as >>>>> suggested on slide 10 >>>>> ofhttp://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-1.pdf >>>>> D.6: change power to eirp, as suggested in slide 13 of >>>>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-2.pdf. >>>>> D.7: change to single and multiple locations. Clarify that in case of >>>>> multiple locations the channel availability for each location should >>>>>be >>>>> sent by the db. >>>>> D.8: delete >>>> " >>>>> >>>> And >>>> " >>>>> Operational requirements: slides 22-24 of >>>>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-2.pdf contain >>>>> suggestions on rewording, I propose the editor considers them. >>>> " >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Scott & Raj >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> paws mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws >>> >> > _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
