On 23/09/13 14:20, Harasty, Daniel J wrote:
Thus I propose that we still need some sort of "explicit unavailable"
notation, and "no mention" should be reserved to express "there is no
information about this piece of spectrum in this time period -- ask
again later".
Stated another way: I propose that PAWS is better off if the Database
has some way to express the difference between "channel unavailable"
and "no information given about this channel [in this time period]".
Perhaps the "implicit unavailability" approach could be made to work
by then ADDING more fields to the event structures, like "response
valid through" or "response expiration" values... but I find that more
convoluted than a "explicit unavailable" notation, which can express
"this bit of spectrum is unavailable in this time period".
(First time poster, not-a-long-time lurker - hello! Do excuse me if I've
missed anything...)
I'm not sure I can see the situation where, as a DB operator, I would
want to say "I don't have anything to say about this piece of spectrum
in this time period". Either I can allocate that spectrum - in which
case I'd be providing freq/power data - or I can't, either for
regulatory reasons or operational reasons (regulator-triggered shutdown,
DB maintainence, etc).
Lack of definition in a response should always imply the spectrum is
unavailable, in my opinion.
That said - I don't see a huge issue in adding a way to express the "no
information available" case if there's a use-case to support that. But I
think that should be a distinct note against some spectrum, with "not
present in response" reserved for "explicitly unavailable".
Cheers,
James Harrison
_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
