Good suggestion. Thanks! -vince
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Sungjin Yoo <[email protected]> wrote: > Vince, > > I suggest to modify 4.4.1 AVAIL_SPECTRUM_REQ as follows to add slave > location. > > <original> > location: The GeoLocation (Section 5.1) for *the Master Device* is > REQUIRED. The location SHOULD be the current location of the > Device, but more precisely, the location of the radiation center > of the Device’s antenna. When the request is made by the Master > Device on behalf of a Slave Device, the location is that of the > *Master Device*. Depending on the regulatory domain, the location > MAY be an anticipated position of the Device to support mobile > devices. If the location specifies a region, rather than a point, > the Database MAY return an error with the UNIMPLEMENTED (Table 1) > code, if it does not support query by region. > > <modified> > location: The GeoLocation (Section 5.1) for *the Device* is > REQUIRED. The location SHOULD be the current location of the > Device, but more precisely, the location of the radiation center > of the Device’s antenna. When the request is made by the Master > Device on behalf of a Slave Device, the location is that of the > *Slave Device*. Depending on the regulatory domain, the location > MAY be an anticipated position of the Device to support mobile > devices. If the location specifies a region, rather than a point, > the Database MAY return an error with the UNIMPLEMENTED (Table 1) > code, if it does not support query by region. > > > And I suggest to add the following parameter. > > <new parameter> > masterDeviceLocation: Depending on regulatory rules, when the request is > made by the Master Device on behalf of a Slave Device, the Master > Device MAY be required to provide its own location. > > Thanks. > > Sungjin > > > > On 10/18/2013 05:34 PM, Vincent Chen wrote: > > Ray, > > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Ray Bellis <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> On 17 Oct 2013, at 18:50, Don Joslyn <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Thanks Vince, >> >> In addition, It’s my current understanding that Ofcom requires slave >> devices to report “Channel Usage”. In PAWS it would be accomplished via >> master device sending a SPECTRUM_USE_NOTIFY on behalf of the slave device. >> We might need to add slave device location to that message, or indicate >> that the location parameter contains the slave device’s location whenever >> etsiEnDeviceCategory is equal to “slave”. Does that make sense? >> >> >> "Channel Usage" is only required for slaves operating above 0 dBm EIRP >> / 8 MHz. >> >> However all masters are required to report "data parameters" (e.g. >> device identifier, emission class, location [optionally]) for every >> connected slave. >> > > Yes, both of these are already supported in the draft. > As Don suggested the optional slave location will be added. > > Thanks. > > >> >> Ray >> >> > > > -- > -vince > > > -- -vince
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
