Subject: [paws] draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-02.txt

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:42:52 +0000

Hi,

Revision 2 of the PS, Use cases and requirements I-D has been posted. Please see:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts-02.txt

This version only includes changes requested by the co-chair in his email of January 12 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/paws/current/msg00516.html
Specifically:
"
2. requirements. In the last f2f
we agreed to modify requirement D.1 to include the suggestions from slide 7-10 ofhttp://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-2.pdf and merge with D.6 and D.9
slides 7&8 of http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-1.pdf also contain suggestions on how to revise this requirement.
Agreed to revise requirement D.2 as suggested in slide 11 of http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-2.pdfand slide 9 of http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-1.pdf
We seem to have agreed with the reformulation suggested to D.3 in slide 12 ofhttp://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-2.pdf, but we did not agree on the format the location would be represented in. The data format part is still open, but as this piece does not really belong to requirements but rather the data model spec, we are not in a hurry to decide it.
Delete d.4
D.5: augment with lower/upper frequencies and time of availability, as suggested on slide 10 ofhttp://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-1.pdf
D.6: change power to eirp, as suggested in slide 13 of http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-2.pdf.
D.7: change to single and multiple locations. Clarify that in case of multiple locations the channel availability for each location should be sent by the db.
D.8: delete
"

And
"
Operational requirements: slides 22-24 of http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-2.pdf contain suggestions on rewording, I propose the editor considers them.
"

Regards,
Scott & Raj

---

From: Teco Boot <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:13:56 +0100

Hi Scott,

IMHO the first 2 use cases "TVWS database discovery" and "Device 
registration with trusted Database" are not real use cases, but
aspects of the protocol. Text says "prerequisite to other use cases".

They could move to the Problem Statement section and combine 
text. There is already a "5.2.  Database discovery". The other section
would need a "5.x  Device registration with trusted Database".

Teco

Op 27 jan. 2012, om 00:42 heeft <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> het volgende geschreven:

> _______________________________________________
> paws mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:38:57 +0000

Hi Teco,

I agree with you that "TVWS database discovery" and "Device registration
with trusted Database" are aspects of the protocol, perhaps services,
rather than use cases. However since these topics are describing
capability required from the protocol, placing them in a section titled
"Problem Statement" could also be unclear.

If we change the title of section 4 to "Use cases and protocol services"
would this be acceptable?

Kind Regards,
Scott

On 1/27/12 3:13 AM, "ext Teco Boot" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Op 27 jan. 2012, om 00:42 heeft <[email-masked]>
><[email-masked]> het volgende geschreven:
>
>> Hi,
>> 
>> This version only includes changes requested by the co-chair in his
>>email of January 12
>>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/paws/current/msg00516.html
>> Specifically:
>> "
>>> we agreed to modify requirement D.1 to include the suggestions from
>>>slide 7-10 ofhttp://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-2.pdf and
>>>merge with D.6 and D.9
>>> slides 7&8 of http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-1.pdf
>>>also contain suggestions on how to revise this requirement.
>>> Agreed to revise requirement D.2 as suggested in slide 11 of
>>>http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-2.pdfand slide 9 of
>>>http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-1.pdf
>>> We seem to have agreed with the reformulation suggested to D.3 in
>>>slide 12 ofhttp://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-2.pdf, but we
>>>did not agree on the format the location would be represented in. The
>>>data format part is still open, but as this piece does not really
>>>belong to requirements but rather the data model spec, we are not in a
>>>hurry to decide it.
>>> Delete d.4
>>> D.5: augment with lower/upper frequencies and time of availability, as
>>>suggested on slide 10
>>>ofhttp://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-1.pdf
>>> D.6: change power to eirp, as suggested in slide 13 of
>>>http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-2.pdf.
>>> D.7: change to single and multiple locations. Clarify that in case of
>>>multiple locations the channel availability for each location should be
>>>sent by the db.
>>> D.8: delete
>> "
>>> 
>> And
>> "
>>> Operational requirements: slides 22-24 of
>>>http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/paws-2.pdf contain
>>>suggestions on rewording, I propose the editor considers them.
>> "
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Scott & Raj

---

From: Teco Boot <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:13:29 +0100

Hi Scott,

I'm fine with your proposal.
Make section 4 multi-level and reword "use case" in the two protocol 
service sections?

Thanks, Teco

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:08:02 +0000

Thanks Teco, I will include this change.

Kind Regards,
Scott

On 1/27/12 9:13 AM, "ext Teco Boot" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Op 27 jan. 2012, om 15:38 heeft <[email-masked]>
>>>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecas
>>>>es
>>>> -rqmts-02.txt
>>>>