Thanks Tony for generating this new version of the document. The overlapping 
use cases have been merged, a new use case has been added and the language was 
cleaned up throughout the document.
I would like to ask people to review it and send to the list any issues. So far 
we got feedback from Nancy (thanks!), this new revision captures her comments. 
But I would like to hear from others as well, before we ask the AD to review it 
again. It only takes 10-15min to review.
If we do not hear any concerns or objections from anyone until next Monday (Jan 
14th), we'll assume the group is fine with the document and we'll ask for the 
AD review.

Thanks, Gabor

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext 
Pete Resnick
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 5:03 PM
To: Anthony Mancuso
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [paws] Fwd: I-D Action: 
draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-09.txt

Tony,

Thanks for the new version. At first glance, it looks like a good edit. I'll do 
a thorough review once the WG confirms that this one is good to go.

Chairs, let me know when this has had enough review. I'd especially like to 
hear from folks like Peter Stanforth and others who had concerns that my 
suggestions might have removed too much from the document. Does this version 
satisfy everyone?

Thanks for giving this a go, and a happy new year to everyone.

pr

On 12/21/12 12:39 PM, Anthony Mancuso wrote:
PAWS list members,

I just submitted a new version of the PAWS Use Cases & Requirements doc for 
review and discussion.

The latest draft (v. 09):

  *   incorporates the suggestions contained in the post by Pete Resnick, AD, 
which included, among other things, recommendation to coordinate 
architecturally-and protocol-common use cases
  *   adds a new use case (local TV broadcast)
  *   Deleted security threat 5 and added language to security considerations 
to match the protocol security considerations that have evolved in the WG
  *   Clarified protocol normative requirement 6.3 to: "The protocol MUST 
support determination of regulatory domain governing its current location."

  *   Cleaned up language and usage:
consistent use of primary, secondary users
changed "channel" availability references to "spectrum" availability where 
appropriate
deleted references specific to TV band and generalized these to radio spectrum
changed references to regulatory domain to rule set of regulatory domain as 
appropriate to clarify that the latter controls device behavior regardless of 
country (Brazil adopts US "FccWhitespace2010" rule set)
cleaned up language and syntax throughout
Thanks for any feedback,

Tony Mancuso




--

Pete Resnick 
<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/><http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>

Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws

Reply via email to