Vince,
Comment is in line.
On 07/19/2013 10:16 AM, Vincent Chen wrote:
Sungjin,
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Sungjin <[email protected]
<mailto:[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.
If master device receive the message in the example, it will be
confused. Assume the master device decides to use the spectrum from
5.18e8 Hz to 5.24e8 Hz(6MHz bandwidth) after receiving this message.
Then the master device may be confused to interpret permissible maximum
power. First one in the example represents 30.0 dBm, but second one
represents about 44.78 dBm(=27dBm + 17.78dB). The master device don't
know which one is correct.
So I think it will be clear if "frequencyRanges" in the second one(for
"bandwidth" : 1e5) is modified to different frequency from first one(for
"bandwidth" : 1e5)
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]
<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
--
-vince
Regards,
Sungjin
_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
