I can give no guidance on scope, but if creating a solution for TVWS allows for us to not have to continually change what has been done, to the ability to wait until guidance comes with say spectrum sharing, new FCC rules in the NPRM now, or in the future, then I agree that my comments are probably looking to solve some issues that we do not have to at this point if we address things as solutions to TVWS.
Sincerely, Nancy On Jan 10, 2013, at 1:37 PM, Peter Stanforth wrote: > I ask this question in ignorance of how IETF works. > In the last 3 months the FCC has published NPRM (notice of proposed rule > making) for 2 new spectrum sharing – white space bands. Specifically 4.9GHz > and 3.5GHz. In the case of the former they did not say much about how sharing > was to be accomplished but in the 3.5GHz NPRM they introduce some new > concepts, like secondary and tertiary use. > So how far do we want to go with the PAWS requirements? Personally I would > prefer we create a solution for TVWS and then see what changes or additions > are required by new TVWS regulations or regulations in new bands. Otherwise I > fear we will never get anything done. But is seems there is a bias towards > trying to get this completely right the first time and have something that is > going to cover all the options. I want to try to make constructive comments > on the document but I ask for some guidance on where we draw the line on > scope. > Thanks, > Peter S. > > From: Nancy Bravin <[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, January 10, 2013 2:58 AM > To: Anthony Mancuso <[email protected]>, Gabor Bajko <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: [paws] what is missing and does it matter? > > I just can't help myself, here are my thoughts: > > 1. Do we, by combining use cases, leave a hole that needs to be plugged by > the FCC regulations? > 2. In the FCC NPRM that is out now, "remote" is mentioned, as well as in > supporting documents, "rural and remote", have we addressed remote as a use > case and should we? To me it seems that we should for there needs to be an > inexpensive way to service these areas globally. > 3. Not being an engineer, I do not know how to model, leave room for > extensions nor do I know if this is the time to do so, or in fact, > will much of that be done by the DB's and not as much on the WSD side. I > think both, but there seems to be views on both sides. > > I think the protocol is really super…I ask for more response from those who > may still be on the reflector, > and or involved on their own for guidance and input. > > Sincerely, Nancy > > “He who breaks a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.” > J.R.R. Tolkien
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
