An interesting thought if an operator could use historic actual data usage reports, which could help if the information was used to find people if there was a need immediately, or in disasters via last known location? Maybe this could be a function of a carrier under regs of that country ? It could be part of information that a DB, or GPS or Broadband system could, if down, make some redundancy if others would be able to do this instead of or in addition to each other. I know this comes under the part about if there is no communication from either side DB/WSD because of cyber/disaster(natural or not) section..was just a thought . We left it as being left to local authorities and regulators to relax the rules so communication could take place.
In the discussion yesterday about roaming…just a thought for those related to the cellular industry, carriers, manufacturers of components, etc. ANd maybe this is a ridiculous thought, could a whitespace device, if one might be in the form of a GPS cellular device, have the ability to have the equivalent of a sim card …when going from the US to the UK, ID for FCC or UK programmed, so if one had a DB in each country…it could be applicable to both sets of regulations? OUt of scope, present later under? Don't think it would work, interrupting the flow of thought, but thanks anyway, we can ask members to comment? Sincerely, Nancy On Apr 21, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > I have to diasagree. Given that the response to a new request for available > channels can potentially be different from the old one, and that the base > station can make a new plan based on the response (including lifetimes) it > receives, the answer that goes with a registration is the expected future > usage. > > If an operator wants historic actual usage reports, taht is a new requirement. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 4/21/2012 4:21 PM, Gerald Chouinard wrote: >> Hi Pete, >> >> I believe you are reading too much into my explanation. I was merely trying >> to identify whether the response back to the database will include the >> actual channel being used at the time of the response or the channel that is >> anticipated to be used later. This is only a question of relative timing. >> >> Furthermore, the regulators will likely prefer getting information on the >> channels that are actually being used rather than the channels that are >> anticipated to be used, in other words, those that are used rather than >> those that may eventually be used. In practice, if one can equate the >> "anticipated usage" to the "actual usage", then there is no problem. >> >> Gerald >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Pete Resnick [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Friday, 20 April, 2012 18:02 >> To: Gerald Chouinard >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [paws] charter update >> >> Hi Gerald, >> >> On 4/19/12 10:01 PM, Gerald Chouinard wrote: >> >>> The "anticipated usage" describes the response that the WSD will make in a >>> transitional state when it initiates its operation after having queried >> the >>> database. >>> >> >> Actually, no. The "anticipated usage" (or, again, perhaps "intended >> usage") describes the response that the radio device will make >> *whenever* it queries the database. Whether it does this as a >> transitional state when it initiates its operation or at a later time in >> order to refresh is completely an implementation detail. As far as the >> protocol is concerned, the response is about which of frequencies it >> intends to use given what the WSD has reported. >> >>> However, since the regulatory bodies in different countries will require >>> that the WSD queries the database on a regular basis (e.g., within 24 >> hours >>> in the USA), the question is whether the WSD will need to send its >> spectrum >>> occupation after every query, even if it has not changed (i.e., the >> behavior >>> in a steady-state). >> >> No, this is absolutely irrelevant. This is outside of the protocol >> operation and is strictly about the semantics of the use of the >> protocol. It does not effect what the protocol will require. >> >>> If this is not needed, then the term "anticipated usage" >>> would be appropriate since the WSD would only respond when it changes its >>> spectrum occupation (however, see paragraph below). If a confirmation is >>> needed every time, then in most of the cases, the WSD would report its >>> current spectrum usage and only when it happens to change its usage would >> it >>> nee to report its "anticipated usage". if it has not already re-tuned to >> the >>> new allowed channel before it sends its report to the database. >>> >> >> The server cannot tell the difference between "I have queried to >> refresh; I've been using this WS and intend to continue to do so" versus >> "I had stopped using this WS some time ago and I am making a new request >> for WS; here's what I intend to use now" versus "I am requesting WS for >> the first time; here is what I intend to use". It is protocol-irrelevant >> which case is being used. >> >>> My guess is that since it will need to free the channel that it was >>> operating on and that is no longer available as soon as possible to avoid >>> interference, it will likely re-tune right away and not wait for the >> report >>> to be sent to the database over the internet before re-tuning (my guess is >>> this would be done over TCP with proper transmission confirmation rather >>> than UDP). In such case, it would then report on its "actual usage" rather >>> than the "anticipated usage". >>> >>> As you can see, this depends on what is being assumed as the process >> taking >>> place at the WSD when it queries the database. Once this is clearly >>> understood, it will be to the group to decide. >>> >> >> I simply disagree with your assessment. >> >> If the group thinks that you will (potentially) need to work on a >> separate protocol piece for notifications of current usage, I think you >> should add that to the proposed charter changes. But I don't see a need >> for that protocol requirement. It seems to me that all of the >> functionality can be satisfied with a response after receiving the list >> of WS indicating intended usage. >> >> pr >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Pete >>> Resnick >>> Sent: Tuesday, 17 April, 2012 09:43 >>> To: [email protected] >>> Cc: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [paws] charter update >>> >>> Folks, >>> >>> 1. As was said by others, "anticipated" is correct. The change in the >>> charter was not to include a constant dynamic update to the database of >>> what the device is currently using, but a one-time immediate report of >>> what the device intends to use. If you prefer "intended" to >>> "anticipated", that is also fine, but we have *not* discussed the >>> possibility of writing the protocol to have an update mechanism to >>> inform the database of the current actual usage. If that's needed, we >>> should further discuss. >>> >>> 2. I should repeat the admonition I made at the meeting in Paris: We are >>> *not* writing regulatory requirements into the protocol. We are writing >>> the protocol to have enough flexibility to satisfy regulatory >>> requirements. I am quite sure if we asked Ofcom whether they wanted >>> "anticipated usage" or "actual usage" in the protocol, they'd say >>> "actual usage", but that is entirely the wrong question to be asking and >>> we'd be getting a bogus answer. If the regulatory requirement we are >>> trying to make sure we are able to cover is "a single report by the >>> device of which spectrum it will be using", then "anticipated" is our >>> design requirement. Regulators (like end users in general) are not >>> protocol designers and the language they use for requirements should not >>> be used in our charter or protocol documents. We need to interpret what >>> their high-level requirements mean for our protocol and use language >>> within our documents (including our charter) that makes sense for a >>> protocol. >>> >>> So, my question to the list: >>> >>> Does anybody think we need to have the device constantly report back to >>> the database about its current usage? >>> >>> If I don't hear from anybody, I'm going to assume that this is *not* >>> needed and that the correct charter update to submit to the IESG should >>> have "anticipated" or "intended". >>> >>> pr >>> >>> On 4/16/12 5:13 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>>> 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
