On 17 Sep 2013, at 23:13, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
Ray, Could you elaborate on this point: > What I don't want to see is that break _within_ the band getting conflated > with breaks _between_ bands. Certain people appear to want the entire UHF channel plan encoded in the PAWS response, using very low PSD values to represent permitted leakage into "unavailable channels". IMHO, this is a very US/FCC-centric model. In the ETSI model, each available channel is _explicitly_ listed, with a low and high frequency. "Unavailable channels" are omitted, and there's no concept of needing to describe the channel plan. Devices just do what they're told, and adjacent channel leakage into otherwise unusable channels is controlled by device approval regulations. Option #2 _could_ be used to represent the ETSI model, but doing so changes the semantics from representing the channel plan to being a workaround to get around the inability of option #2 to explicitly specify "unavailable channels" without resorting to magic values. So far we have few people speaking for either of the options. We need to agree on this asap and move forward, so please send a mail to the list and indicate whether you are ok with either option, or you feel strongly for one or the other. Strongly for #1, of course :) I would also be happy with a variant of #1 where the profile is still presented as a list-of-lists to support representing a US-style non-contiguous channel plan, but which still permits frequency ranges to be omitted within each contiguous band). Ray
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
