Here's my chair review of the
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-03.txt
draft:
In version 2 of the draft there was a use case about offloading, which
disappeared in this version. I believe that was a valid use case and see no
reason for it to be deleted. I think it should be put back.
Requirement D.1:
s/for the location determination/of the location determination
D.2, D.3: I believe the URIs should not be specified in the Data Model, but
rather discovered during the WSDB discovery procedure. Can you confirm these?
If yes, then these requirements should be deleted.
D.4: isn't the regulatory domain also discovered? The Data Model might also
list the regulatory domain, I see no harm in it, but then that is not a
mandatory requirement any more.
D.10: I think channel availability should either be specified for a location or
for an area, but not both. Change the requirement to:
"The Data Model MUST support specifying channel availability
information for a single location or for an area in the form of a
geodetic-shape."
P.2: Since P.1 requires database discovery, I see no need for this requirement.
P.6, P.7: s/MUST be integrity protected/MUST support integrity protection
P.11, P.12: The Data Model already specifies what parameters need to be
supported, you do not need to replicate the text here. It looks like keeping
the first sentence in these requirements is sufficient, the rest can be removed.
P.13, P.16: the interface between the slave and the master device is currently
out of scope, these requirements should be removed for now.
P.17 is a radio interface functionality, not something ietf can specify, so
this should be removed too.
P.18: s/lists/information
P.19 is also captured earlier in D.10, no need to replicate it.
- Gabor
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bajko
Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley)
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 11:46 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [paws] WGLC for draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-03
The authors of the use cases and requirements draft have just posted a new
version of the draft and indicated that there are no unresolved comments/issues
they are aware of.
Therefore, I'd like to initiate a WG Last Call for comments on
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-03.txt
Please review the draft and send your comments to the list by March 20th, 2012.
If you review the draft and have no comments, send a note to the list that the
draft is good as it is, we need these notes as much as we need the actual
comments.
Thanks, Gabor
_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
