How about the following wording? Slave Device: A device that uses a Master Device to query a Spectrum Database on its behalf to find available spectrum. The slave device may or may not have geo-location capability. A slave device that does not have geo-location capability MUST get available spectrum via a Master Device.
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Vincent Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > This sounds reasonable. > > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Harasty, Daniel J <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> I'd like to comment some of Sanjeev's input.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I prefer to send independent replies on each topic, as that way a given >> email thread is about a single topic (more or less).**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Sanjeev mentioned:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> From: [email protected] >> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 10:31 AM**** >> >> [...]**** >> >> 1. Section 2.2 states Slave device as a device without geolocation >> capability. I think the phrasing there need to be different. A Slave device >> may or may not have geolocation capability, but does not directly query the >> database. Also a mobile Slave device, can it not switch as master device in >> adhoc? **** >> >> [...]**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I agree with the nature of his comment: a Slave device may well have >> geolocation capabilities; however PAWS does not expect it needs to use them >> to communicate with a Master device. I would support an update to the >> definition of Slave.**** >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
