Thanks Anthony, seems good to me…yes, lets move on and submit …Sincerely, Nancy
On Jan 11, 2013, at 1:13 PM, Anthony Mancuso wrote: > In response to earlier comments, I also updated my working use case and > requirements doc to make it clear that the mention of WI-Fi in the backhaul > use case was intended as an an example, and was non-exclusive, as follows: > > "In this use case, an Internet connectivity service is provided to users over > a common wireless standard, such as Wi-Fi, with a white space master/slave > network providing backhaul connectivity to the Internet. Note that Wi-Fi is > referenced in Figure 4 and the following discussion, but any other technology > can be substituted in its place." > > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Anthony Mancuso <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Nancy, > > I've edited the latest working draft (not yet posted to IETF while I wait for > other comments): > > "There are many potential use cases for white space spectrum - for example, > providing broadband Internet access in urban and densely-populated hotspots > as well as rural and remote, underserved areas." > > and > > "There are a number of common scenarios in which a master white space device > will act as proxy or mediator for one or more slave devices using its > connection to the Internet to query the database for available spectrum for > itself and for one or more slave devices. These slave devices may be fixed or > mobile, in close proximity with each other (indoor network or urban hotspot), > or at a distance (rural or remote WAN)." > > I hope these changes help address some of your concerns. Also, since rural > and remote WANs and the other use cases listed share a common architecture > and protocol messages, I grouped them together (following Pete Resnik's > suggestions). > > Tony > > > > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Nancy Bravin <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
