I had interpreted the word "anticipated" simply as "from that point on." However, reading people's views on the sentence I now think it is better to remove it.
The suggested phrase from Andy below should clear out all confusions. Juan-Carlos > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 8:14 AM > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [paws] charter update > > Gabor > > Like Gerald, I am uneasy with the use of the word "anticipated". We > can ask Ofcom, but I am sure they will just point us to their > regulatory requirements which use phrasing like "a master WSD must > communicate to the WSDB the following information: .... The lower and > upper frequency boundaries of the in-block emissions.... The maximum > in-block EIRP spectral densities (in dBm/(0.2 MHz)) that the master > WSD, and its associated slaves, actually radiate ....". So their > regulatory requirements are for actual usage, not anticipated. It may > be foolish for the group to agree charter text that says something > different. Can we just delete the word "anticipated" in the new bullet > 5? The word order could be changed to " Report spectrum usage to the > white space database at a suitable granularity". > > Andy > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Gerald Chouinard > Sent: 15 April 2012 18:40 > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [paws] charter update > > Gabor, > > I am wandering is the word "anticipated" will be good enough for OFCOM. > You may want to verify with them. To establish a status of the spectrum > usage in an area, the regulator will likely need the actual usage of > this spectrum and not only its "anticipated" usage. > > My two cents ... > > Gerald > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: Friday, 13 April, 2012 16:31 > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [paws] charter update > > Pete, Peter, > > There doesn't seem to be any objection to this charter update text on > the list from the WG members. Could you guys take this charter proposal > text to the iesg's telechat? > > Thanks, Gabor > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley) > Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 1:02 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [paws] charter update > > Here's the charter update proposal text: > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-paws-4.txt > > According to diff, the are 6 lines changed, including the update to the > milestones. The main change is adding bullet point 5: " Report to the > white space database anticipated spectrum usage at a suitable > granularity." > > - Gabor > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 6:06 PM > To: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley) > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [paws] charter update > > On 4/9/12 3:40 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > Folks, > > > > There was long discussion on the list before the Paris F2F about the > > newly surfaced Ofcom requirements, which require the master devices > to > > report back to the wsdb the spectrum chosen for operation. Since this > > aspect is not captured in the current charter, during the F2F we > > discussed how to capture those requirements and there was no > objection > > to a slight charter update. > > > > The tentative charter update text I showed in slide 7 of > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-paws-0.pptx had > > one objection to the text added as a 5^th bullet point: "5. Report > > back to the white space database use information, including the > chosen > > channels for operation and other relevant information", noting that > > the result may be a chatty behavior in case of frequency hopping (see > > the > minutes). > > > > The new proposal would be to replace the text in bullet 5 with > "Report > > to the white space database anticipated spectrum usage at a suitable > > granularity." This text seem to be fine with Joel, who raised the > objection. > > > > I hope there is consensus in the wg for this new wording for the > > charter update text. If there is no objection on the list to this > > newly proposed text in the next few days, I would ask our AD to take > > the proposed charter update text in slide 7 of > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-paws-0.pptx, with > > the new text for bullet 5, to the iesg. > > Hi Gabor, > > Would you be so kind as to send the actual text to the list? That will > make it easier for people to track the changes, search on this thread, > etc. > > Thanks! > > Peter > > -- > Peter Saint-Andre > https://stpeter.im/ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ > paws mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
