I would not suggest specifying a method to resolve HAAT, as there are
many methods which may be used and I would not bet on every regulatory
region agreeing on a single method. For each Height (altitude) provide a
way to indicate what it is as suggested bellow and a way to identify the
reference model or regional method (like regulator ID?).
At the moment, FCC specifies the location is of the device, while OfCom
specifies the location is of the antenna. The later makes more sense
to a radio guy worried about interference footprint. The first seems to
assume the device and antenna are close enough to each other (within the
allowed uncertainty which is currently +-50m). OfCom and FCC currently
specify WGS84. This may change in the future if the as the WGS model has
been and will be updated from time to time. OfCom gives specific
requirements for how accuracy is specified (and a 95% confidence
level). Where antenna height is required by OfCom it is specified as
above ground level. FCC has specified HAAT and has already revised at
least once how HAAT is to be determined (and I expect it to change again).
OfCom identifies other antenna characteristics that may be communicated
between a device and the database as well including directionality and
orientation, polarisation (I am quoting OfCom here), and if the antenna
location is indoor or outdoor.
Hope this helps
Ben
On 10/11/2012 5:40 AM, Peter Stanforth wrote:
Agreed.
We need to be able to resolve AGL, HAAT, location and maybe other criteria
based on the regulators methods. I am not sure a single 3D location will
be acceptable.
On ThuOct/11/12 Thu Oct 11, 6:07 AM, "Rosen, Brian"
<[email protected]> wrote:
We need both I think, because of the way the regulations are written. I
don't think there is a simple way to convert that would be acceptable.
In theory, if we knew the terrain height at the location accurately
enough, we could calculate what we need, but that is an onerous
requirement I think.
Brian
On Oct 11, 2012, at 12:53 AM, Vincent Chen<[email protected]> wrote:
All,
The various versions of the proposed drafts of the PAWS protocol tended
to distinguish between "device location" and "antenna height".
I think we should combine them into a single 3-D location of the
radiation center of (the antenna of) the device.
Does that sound right?
The proposed draft-vchen-paws-protocol-00 defines the following
parameters for location and height:
latitude
longitude
locationUncertainty
locationConfidence
height
heightType
heightUncertainty
This is very close to the fields defined by RFC 6225, which has the
parameters:
latitude
latitudeUncertainty
longitude
longitudeUncertainty
altitude
altitudeUncertainty
altitudeType
Should PAWS reference RFC 6225 and list the following differences?
- The "altitudeType" should be "above means sea level" (WGS84) or
"above ground", instead of the ones defined in the RFC.
- Add confidence values along each axis.
If this acceptable, then we can think about defining JSON encoding of
RFC 6225 for use by PAWS.
Thanks.
--
-vince
_______________________________________________
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
