The new version looks good to me. Please find feedback attached, just some minor nits.
Regards, Don -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [[email protected]] Received: Tuesday, 14 Jan 2014, 3:10pm To: [email protected] [[email protected]]; [email protected] [[email protected]] Subject: Re: [paws] I-D Action: draft-ietf-paws-protocol-08.txt Good, thanks Vince. This draft incorporates the agreeable comments received during the second wglc. I’d like to ask people on the list to please review the set of changes the editor implemented and let the list know if you have any comments. If no comments received, I think the wg is done with the document and it is ready to be forwarded to the IESG. I plan to do that next week, so if you have comments to the draft then please send those to the list during this week. Gabor From: paws [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Vincent Chen Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:52 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [paws] I-D Action: draft-ietf-paws-protocol-08.txt Gabor, All, I've uploaded a new version of the draft incorporating the proposed changes: o Propose ruleset ID name for ETSI: ETSI-EN-301-598-1.0.0-draft o Change TBD email address to [email protected] for proposing changes to the PAWS IANA registries o Moved discussion of required vCard properties to regulatory-specific sections o Fixed vCard examples for organization names: Use "fn" property, but set "kind" to "org". o Shorten parameter names: * freqHz -> hz * powerDbmPerBw -> dbm Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-paws-protocol-07&url2=draft-ietf-paws-protocol-08 -vince On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:48 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Protocol to Access WS database Working Group of the IETF. Title : Protocol to Access White-Space (PAWS) Databases Authors : Vincent Chen Subir Das Lei Zhu John Malyar Peter J. McCann Filename : draft-ietf-paws-protocol-08.txt Pages : 104 Date : 2014-01-14 Abstract: Portions of the radio spectrum that are allocated to licensees are available for non-interfering use. This available spectrum is called "White Space." Allowing secondary users access to available spectrum "unlocks" existing spectrum to maximize its utilization and to provide opportunities for innovation, resulting in greater overall spectrum utilization. One approach to manage spectrum sharing uses databases to report spectrum availability to devices. To achieve interoperability among multiple devices and databases, a standardized protocol must be defined and implemented. This document defines such a protocol, the "Protocol to Access White Space (PAWS) Databases". The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-paws-protocol/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-paws-protocol-08 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-paws-protocol-08 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws -- -vince Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
1. On page 24, deviceDesc references AVAIL_SPECTRUM_REQ, should be AVAIL_SPECTRUM_BATCH_REQ? 2. On page 35, section 5.7, should "This message is provided" be "This element is provided"? 3. On page 36, section 5.8, should "This message contains" be "This element contains"? 4. On page 44, DeviceValidity described in 5.16 includes optional "reason" string; it's missing from DeviceValidity on page 28, section 4.5.2. 5. On page 46, section 5.17.2 (DATABASE_CHANGE) uses "spec:DbUpdateSpec" for including a list of databases, should section 5.17.1 (OUTSIDE_COVERAGE) use the same? 6. On page 83, section 6.8.13, first sentence is "The JSON encoding of the Available Spectrum response message AVAIL_SPECTRUM_RESP reads", but this section describes "SpectrumSpec", which is only a portion of the AVAIL_SPECTRUM_RESP message. 7. On page 92, section 9.2.2.1, after "Specification document(s):" contains "[[ this document ]]". Should it be deleted?
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
