Vince,
I understand "bandwidth" parameter is just for defining permissible
power or spectral density and
it dose not represent the operation bandwidth. (see 4.4.5.
SPECTRUC_USE_NOTIFY, 'spectra' parameter description)
If I misunderstand, please correct me.
And I found another typos.
"jsonrpc": "2.0", should be added to all examples.
Regards,
Sungjin
On 07/16/2013 06:56 AM, Vincent Chen wrote:
Sungjin,
Sorry for the long delay (vacation). Answers inline.
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 10:30 PM, 유성진 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi All,
I have found two typos.
At example "getSpectrum" JSON-RPC in 6.4.1. :
"id": "xxxxxx", --> Comma should be deleted.
At example "getSpectrumBatch" JSON-RPC in 6.5.1. :
"id": "xxxxxx", --> Comma should be deleted.
Thanks!
I have a comment about example "getSpectrum" JSON-RPC response in
6.4.2 and 6.5.2.
There are two spectrum information parameters for the same
frequency range.
One is for bandwidth 6e6, and the other is for bandwidth 1e5.
But spectral density of 6e6 is different from that of 1e5 in the
same frequency range.
It will be more nice if the spectral density of the same frequency
range is same.
Or it will be also nice if frequency ranges are modified to be
different from each other.
This is intended to represent the permissible maximum power in which
"wide-band" and "narrow-band" operations are permitted.
The available frequencies do not change (hence, the same start/stop
frequencies), just the permissible power.
Does that make sense?
-vince
Thank you.
BR,
Sungjin
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] On
Behalf Of [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:18 AM
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [paws] WGLC on
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-paws-protocol-06
All,
The Editor of the document posted a new version and indicated that
all open issues raised on the list were resolved, and that there
are no more open issues he is aware of.
Therefore, I'd like to issue a wg last call on the document. We
need reviews and feedback in order to be able to progress the
document.
Please read through the draft and send any comments you may have
to the list in the next 2-3 weeks.
If you review the draft and have no comments, send a note to the
list that the draft is good as it is, we need these notes as much
as we need the actual comments.
Thanks, Gabor
_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
--
-vince
_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
