Sungjin,
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Sungjin <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > Oh, I understand what you're saying. The example does not make sure the math works out to be equivalent. I thought, though, some regulators actually wants different power spectral density for narrow band, so it's not always guaranteed to be the same. > > And I found another typos. > "jsonrpc": "2.0", should be added to all examples. > Thanks. I will incorporate this. > > 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]> 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]] On Behalf Of >> [email protected] >> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:18 AM >> To: [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] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws >> _______________________________________________ >> paws mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws >> > > > > -- > -vince > > > -- -vince
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
