<as individual>
While I don't care if it's center and width or upper/lower, I do think we will 
define the format in the protocol for interoperability reasons, but don't need 
to do that in requirements.  It wouldn't hurt to decide now and use consistent 
terms, but we don't need to.

I think "band" won't work, as it usually implies a much wider piece of spectrum 
that has a common purpose.  The TV Band is all the channels.


On Aug 10, 2012, at 2:37 AM, Teco Boot 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

(somewhat late response)

A center frequency and channel width is functional equivalent to start/stop 
frequencies. So is channel number, with ref to channel number assignment 
scheme. For a requirements document, we just need to specify what is needed. 
How it is encoded (Hz, wave length, channel ID) is solution space.

Seen our goal to make PAWS somewhat universal (not limited to US TVWS), I do 
not prefer using channel numbers.

Teco


Op 9 aug. 2012, om 21:55 heeft 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> het volgende geschreven:

Folks,

During the last F2F meeting, there was an agreement to make a slight update to 
requirement D.7 in 
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-06.txt, to 
make channel numbers optional to be supported. Ie, change the current D.7
“The Data Model MUST support specifying a list of available channels. The Data 
Model MUST support specification of this information by channel numbers and by 
start and stop frequencies. The Data Model MUST support a channel availability 
schedule and maximum power level for each channel in the list.”
to
“The Data Model MUST support specifying a list of available channels. The Data 
Model MUST support specification of this information by start and stop 
frequencies and MAY include channel numbers. The Data Model MUST support a 
channel availability schedule and maximum power level for each channel in the 
list.”

I’d like to confirm this change on the list. If anyone has any objections, let 
me know. Otherwise I’ll plan to send the document to the iesg after this change 
is implemented.

-          Gabor
_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws

_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws

_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws

Reply via email to