Andy The statement “White space devices must comply one way or another” is inconsistent with the testing process we have been required to use to get FCC certification (5 WSDs so far), and I suggest that you cannot currently certify a device that does not have the conformance encoded in the firmware. Specifically: In order to certify a White Space Device the device must be certified against the FCC test process (https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=Rnszbl7%2BTh%2FUqEwk%2FztsOQ%3D%3D ), which consists of two independent parts. Part 1: Radio Frequency (RF) Certification Tests, tests the RF characteristics independent of the database, and includes conformance with channel 37 limits (iv. Measurements in the 602-620 MHz band ( TV channels 36-38)) - which means the behavior has to be encoded in the device. It is only after they have completed the Part 1 test that they run the Part 2 test: Database Interface Certification Tests, which is to validate the behavior of the radio with the database. So to permit constraints to be managed by a WSDB, as you suggest, would require changes to the current TCB process defined by the FCC. Peter S.
From: Andy Lee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 at 2:23 PM To: Ray Bellis <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [paws] Question: Encode slopes? 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]<mailto:[email protected]> | 408-230-0522 On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Ray Bellis <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 29 Oct 2013, at 15:57, Vincent Chen <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
