Cesar, Looking at the ETSI EN 301 598 v1.0.9 doc, it looks like this parameter is optional:
Within Table 4: "The default value is 0" Note 2: "If the simultaneous channel operation power restriction parameter is not provided, ..." So I would list this as an OPTIONAL parameter in section 9.2.2.2 (the IANA section for ETSI specifics). Does that sound right? Thanks. -vince On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:59 AM, Cesar Gutierrez < [email protected]> wrote: > Luzango, > > Support for this parameter is mandatory in ETSI EN 301 598. A device > manufacturer that chooses the route of compliance with the ETSI EN to put > products in the EU market will have to implement it. Secondly, Ofcom will > most likely require WS databases and devices to support the parameter when > we set up the licence exemption regime next year. > > This doesn’t mean it must be supported in PAWS right now. Database > providers and device manufacturers using PAWS could implement it as a > proprietary addendum. However, it would make a lot of sense to include it > in PAWS at this stage in my view. > > It would be preferable that the PAWS specification support all > functionality required by the current version of the ETSI EN. This version > of the ETSI EN is now at the stage of a vote by national standard > organisations, and it is very very unlikely to change. Additional > functionality cannot be incorporated now – an new work item needs to be > started in ETSI for this, and it will take more than a year to get to a > stable draft anyway. It is therefore a good point in time to align both > documents. > > In summary, regulatory-wise it is not an absolute must, but it will be > highly advisable. > > Regards, > > Cesar > > > > *From:* Luzango Mfupe [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* 04 March 2014 06:58 > *To:* Gabor Bajko; Brian Rosen; Cesar Gutierrez > *Cc:* [email protected] > > *Subject:* Re: [paws] Revised ETSI standard > > > > Hi Cesar, > > > > What will be the implications regulatory-wise of not including this new > ETSI requirement in PAWS version 1?, is this not an optional requirement? > > Regards > > Luzango. > > >>> Cesar Gutierrez <[email protected]> 03/03/2014 19:00 >>> > Gabor, Brian, > > I think that what we would be looking for is a new parameter added to the > SpectrumSpec element. > > I suggest the following: > > Parameter name: etsiEnSimultaneousChannelOperationRestriction > Parameter usage location: SpectrumSpec (Section 5.9) > Specification document: Specifies the constraint on the device maximum > total EIRP, as defined by the ETSI Harmonised Standard [ETSI-EN-301-598]. > The values are represented by numeric strings, such as "0", "1", etc. > Consult the documentation for the specification of the power constrain > corresponding to each parameter value. > > > It would be great if we could consider this at the WG meeting tomorrow. > > Thanks and regards, > Cesar > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rosen, Brian [mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]> > ] > Sent: 27 February 2014 15:51 > To: Gabor Bajko > Cc: Cesar Gutierrez; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [paws] Revised ETSI standard > > Can do. We'll cover this at the end of the -protocol discussion. > > Brian > > On Feb 26, 2014, at 6:22 PM, Gabor Bajko <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The need for this requirement should be discussed on the list; and if > > agreed, it can be incorporated by the editor into a future draft > > version. > > I won't be there in London, but perhaps, if you or someone else could > > propose text this week, Brian could add it to next week's agenda. > > > > - Gabor > > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Cesar Gutierrez > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear all, > >> > >> > >> > >> There is a new version available of ETSI EN 301 598 (this is the > >> standard that lays out the requirements for operation in Europe). > >> Most of the changes relate to RF requirements, but there is also an > >> additional information element that the database will have to > communicate to the Master device. > >> This element indicates whether simultaneous transmission over > >> multiple channels must be restricted in power, and it can take the > values of 0 and 1. > >> > >> > >> > >> EN 301 598 v1.0.9 can be found here: > >> > >> http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301598/01.00.09_30/ > >> en_301598v010009v.pdf > >> > >> and the addition I am referring to is described in section 4.2.3.4 > >> and in table 4. > >> > >> > >> > >> Is it still possible to incorporate this new information element to > >> the PAWS specification? > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks and regards, > >> > >> Cesar > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> > >> ********************************************************************* > >> ********************************************* > >> For more information visit www.ofcom.org.uk > >> > >> This email (and any attachments) is confidential and intended for the > >> use of the addressee only. > >> > >> If you have received this email in error please notify the originator > >> of the message and delete it from your system. > >> > >> This email has been scanned for viruses. However, you open any > >> attachments at your own risk. > >> > >> Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual > >> sender and do not represent the views or opinions of Ofcom unless > >> expressly stated otherwise. > >> ********************************************************************* > >> ********************************************* > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> paws mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > paws mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws > > > ________________________________ > > > ****************************************************************************************************************** > For more information visit www.ofcom.org.uk > > This email (and any attachments) is confidential and intended for the use > of the addressee only. > > If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of > the message and delete it from your system. > > This email has been scanned for viruses. However, you open any attachments > at your own risk. > > Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and > do not represent the views or opinions of Ofcom unless expressly stated > otherwise. > > ****************************************************************************************************************** > > > -- > This message is subject to the CSIR's copyright terms and conditions, > e-mail legal notice, and implemented Open Document Format (ODF) standard. > The full disclaimer details can be found at > http://www.csir.co.za/disclaimer.html. > > > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by > *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, > and is believed to be clean. > > > Please consider the environment before printing this email. > > ------------------------------ > > > ****************************************************************************************************************** > For more information visit www.ofcom.org.uk > > This email (and any attachments) is confidential and intended for the use > of the addressee only. > > If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of > the message and delete it from your system. > > This email has been scanned for viruses. However, you open any attachments > at your own risk. > > Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and > do not represent the views or opinions of Ofcom unless expressly stated > otherwise. > > ****************************************************************************************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > paws mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws > > -- -vince
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
