Vince and all,

I think "location" in AVAIL_SPECTRUM_REQ may be the location of Slave device when the request is made by the Master device on behalf of a slave device.

See following in RFC6953

5.3.  Operational Requirements


   O.5  A master device MUST be able to query the database for the
        available spectrum on behalf of a slave device at a specified
        location before the slave device starts radio transmission in
        white space at that location.


6.  Security Considerations
   PAWS is a protocol whereby a master device requests a schedule of
   available spectrum at its location (or the location of its slave
   devices) before it (or they) can operate using those frequencies.



--Sungjin



On 07/26/2013 11:16 AM, Vincent Chen wrote:
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] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    This sounds reasonable.


    On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Harasty, Daniel J
    <[email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws




-- -vince




--
-vince

_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws

Reply via email to