Peter, Pete, I do not think it is advisable to change any of the use cases under one umbrella because they are similar, and if it were me I would have it rural/remote but that is me…. For regulators who will have different rules, i.e., Peter's comments, I agree. On many other issues you mentioned I do agree, but not this. Sorry. N
Ogen Nov 6, 2012, at 7:38 AM, Peter Stanforth wrote: > It is those regulators again! Using FCC rules: > Those two use cases may have similar architectures but as a DB provider I > have to treat them very differently. Specifically rural is fixed to fixed and > hotspot is mode 2 to mode 1 > The messaging is different. The fixed device is required to register the mode > 2 does not. The mode 2 has to validate the FCCid of its associated mode 1 > devices. A fixed device does not validate the fixed slaves associated with > it. > A fixed slave, fixed master and mode 2 talk to the DB the mode 1 never does. > > > On Nov 6, 2012, at 9:32 AM, "Pete Resnick" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Nancy, >> >> I think you misunderstood the intention of my comment regarding >> "merging". See inline: >> >> On 11/2/12 5:54 PM, Nancy Bravin wrote: >> >>> I will take exception to merging technologies: >>> The blending of all or any similar groups that participated in this >>> effort or were considered from IEEE802. I.e. 22, 11, 16. 15 white >>> space groups. >>> What what done by people from all groups was to be concerned about the >>> "consumer" as well as industry for different locations globally where >>> WS devices can be used. >>> Would it be cheaper to have one type? At what cost…the very people >>> that are in other countries, >>> that are not under the FCC/Ofcom type structure of Regulations/Devices >>> types? Isn't what you have advised against by not mentioning >>> regulators etc in the protocol? >> >> I am *not* suggesting merging the technologies themselves. Of course >> that's not something that the IETF can do anything about at all. All I >> was suggesting was that in the list of use cases in the document, we >> might be able to combine a few of the technologies into one section of >> the document where those technologies have a lot in common. The problem >> is not the number of technologies; it's fine to mention them all. It's >> just that there is a lot of duplicated information in the descriptions, >> and I think it would make the document clearer to group a few of them >> together. For example, the hotspot example in 4.2.1 and the >> wide-area/rural example in 4.2.2 have almost identical architectures, so >> I think we might be able to mention both use cases in one section. >> >> I'm sorry if I confused the issue by using the word "merging". I was not >> referring to the technologies. I only meant that we could mention >> multiple technologies in a single section of the use cases document when >> it makes sense to group them together. >> >> Does that make sense? >> >> pr >> >> -- >> Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> >> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paws mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
