[apologies for the late reply, I've been away on business and didn't have time to follow the list]
On 3 Oct 2013, at 16:56, Peter Stanforth <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Personally speaking, I got tired of arguing and had more important things to do. It does not appear that "everyone" is ok with the proposal because the number of people involved in the discussion is such a small subset of the group. Indeed! My primary concern is the delay in the process that is being created by what appears to be feature creep relative to the charter/requirements. I am comfortable that I can support Ofcom, FCC, and other TVWS regulation that I am aware of with the channel information described in the current published draft (v6). +1 - the -06 draft is already sufficient to satisfy all current regulatory needs - why complicate it at this stage? There were so many examples ricocheting around I did not realize this was the proposal on the table so I have not considered it enough to decide what my opinion is. So as you asked, though I am somewhat confused by what this proposal means , I will try to review this and respond in context. I think the proposed structure is only barely acceptable. It works, but it imposes an unnecessarily deep structure on those whose requirements were perfectly satisfied with the -06 version. It does not (without additional rules) result in a definitive canonical representation, which may lead to confusion for implementors. In particular, I would be extremely unlikely to coalesce contiguous channels into a single "segment" when a separate segment "per channel" would be far simpler (and the -06 version simpler still!) I've yet to see *any* rationale to justify non-zero slope in the segment data that isn't based on OOB emissions, which IMHO simply do not belong in this table. Ray
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
