Sunglin, Some clarification: The maxPowerDbm is total power. It is not a spectral density.
Thus, if a 6MHz channel is available, the Device may choose to put, say, ten 100kHz sub-channels within that channel. The total power summed over those 10 sub-channels cannot exceed 27dBm. So here is one way the Device may use the response. - The Device determines first if it wants to be a narrow band (1e5) or wideband (6e6) device - It selects the Spectrum specification, based on its mode -vince On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Sungjin Yoo <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> 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]> 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 > > > Regards, > Sungjin > > -- -vince
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
