On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 8:04 AM, Pete Resnick <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 8/21/14 2:59 AM, Vincent Chen wrote: > > = Section 4.5 = >> These two sentences seem to contradict each other: >> >> "The device identifier, capabilities, and characteristics >> communicated in the AVAIL_SPECTRUM_REQ message MUST be those of the >> Slave Device, but the location MUST be that of the Master Device." >> > > Ouch! I'll fix that. "... location MUST be that of the Slave Device." > >> > Do we have any idea how that got in there in the first place? That seems > like it was a conscious decision, and I want to make sure we're not missing > something. > Yes. In response to last call on draft 7 back on 2013-12-03, Sajeev Manikkoth suggested that we should have the ability to include the Slave location. In response, I proposed adding a masterDeviceLocation to refer to the Master's location, but I screwed up the text. > > pr > > -- > Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> > <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> > Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 > > -- -vince
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
