Hi, A couple of comments:
- The constraints on channels 36 and 38 are part of the current FCC rules. White space devices must comply with this requirement one way or another, whether this information comes from the database or if it's somehow encoded into the device firmware. The FCC allows for either kind of implementation, and PAWS should be supportive of this. - PAWS is not limited to the FCC or the TV band. We want to be cognizant of emerging rules in other jurisdictions, in other bands, and with the current state of radio technologies. This is (hopefully) an international standard that is not bound to any one country's rules or any one company's implementation. - All else being equal, why not choose an encoding that is a better match for all currently known rules and radio technologies? Respectfully, Andy Lee | Google Inc. | [email protected] | 408-230-0522 On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Ray Bellis <[email protected]>wrote: > > On 29 Oct 2013, at 15:57, Vincent Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Just to make it more concrete, I've included the proposed change to the > text and examples: > > I do NOT support this change. All of the observations I made in my > message of 9th October still apply. > > The only potentially valid use case I've seen for non-zero slopes are the > FCC limits for channels 36 and 38, and we've heard from Spectrum Bridge > that this isn't an issue. > > Ray > > _______________________________________________ > paws mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws >
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
