Subject: [paws] charter update

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 21:40:50 +0000

Folks,

There was long discussion on the list before the Paris F2F about the newly surfaced Ofcom requirements, which require the master devices to report back to the wsdb the spectrum chosen for operation. Since this aspect is not captured in the current charter, during the F2F we discussed how to capture those requirements and there was no objection to a slight charter update.

The tentative charter update text I showed in slide 7 of http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-paws-0.pptx had one objection to the text added as a 5th bullet point: "5. Report back to the white space database use information, including the chosen channels for operation and other relevant information", noting that the result may be a chatty behavior in case of frequency hopping (see the minutes).

The new proposal would be to replace the text in bullet 5 with "Report to the white space database anticipated spectrum usage at a suitable granularity." This text seem to be fine with Joel, who raised the objection.

I hope there is consensus in the wg for this new wording for the charter update text. If there is no objection on the list to this newly proposed text in the next few days, I would ask our AD to take the proposed charter update text in slide 7 of http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-paws-0.pptx, with the new text for bullet 5, to the iesg.

-          Gabor

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:06:07 -0600

On 4/9/12 3:40 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> There was long discussion on the list before the Paris F2F about the
> newly surfaced Ofcom requirements, which require the master devices to
> report back to the wsdb the spectrum chosen for operation. Since this
> aspect is not captured in the current charter, during the F2F we
> discussed how to capture those requirements and there was no objection
> to a slight charter update.
> 
> The tentative charter update text I showed in slide 7 of
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-paws-0.pptx had one
> objection to the text added as a 5^th bullet point: “5. Report back to
> the white space database use information, including the chosen channels
> for operation and other relevant information”, noting that the result
> may be a chatty behavior in case of frequency hopping (see the minutes).
> 
> The new proposal would be to replace the text in bullet 5 with “Report
> to the white space database anticipated spectrum usage at a suitable
> granularity.” This text seem to be fine with Joel, who raised the objection.
> 
> I hope there is consensus in the wg for this new wording for the charter
> update text. If there is no objection on the list to this newly proposed
> text in the next few days, I would ask our AD to take the proposed
> charter update text in slide 7 of
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-paws-0.pptx, with
> the new text for bullet 5, to the iesg.

Hi Gabor,

Would you be so kind as to send the actual text to the list? That will
make it easier for people to track the changes, search on this thread, etc.

Thanks!

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:02:00 +0000

Here's the charter update proposal text: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-paws-4.txt

According to diff, the are 6 lines changed, including the update to the milestones. The main change is adding bullet point 5: " Report to the white space database anticipated spectrum usage at a suitable granularity."

- Gabor 

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 6:06 PM
To: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [paws] charter update

On 4/9/12 3:40 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-paws-0.pptx had 
> one objection to the text added as a 5^th bullet point: “5. Report 
> back to the white space database use information, including the chosen 
> channels for operation and other relevant information”, noting that 
> the result may be a chatty behavior in case of frequency hopping (see the minutes).
> 
> I hope there is consensus in the wg for this new wording for the 
> charter update text. If there is no objection on the list to this 
> newly proposed text in the next few days, I would ask our AD to take 
> the proposed charter update text in slide 7 of 

Hi Gabor,

Would you be so kind as to send the actual text to the list? That will make it easier for people to track the changes, search on this thread, etc.

Thanks!

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 20:30:30 +0000

Pete, Peter,

There doesn't seem to be any objection to this charter update text on the list from the WG members. Could you guys take this charter proposal text to the iesg's  telechat?

Thanks, Gabor

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley)
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 1:02 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [paws] charter update

- Gabor 

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 6:06 PM
To: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [paws] charter update

Hi Gabor,

Thanks!

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

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

---

From: Gerald Chouinard <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 13:39:34 -0400

Gabor,

I am wandering is the word "anticipated" will be good enough for OFCOM. You
may want to verify with them. To establish a status of the spectrum usage in
an area, the regulator will likely need the actual usage of this spectrum
and not only its "anticipated" usage.

My two cents ...

Gerald

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Friday, 13 April, 2012 16:31
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [paws] charter update

Pete, Peter,

There doesn't seem to be any objection to this charter update text on the
list from the WG members. Could you guys take this charter proposal text to
the iesg's  telechat?

Thanks, Gabor

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley)
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 1:02 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [paws] charter update

Here's the charter update proposal text:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-paws-4.txt

According to diff, the are 6 lines changed, including the update to the
milestones. The main change is adding bullet point 5: " Report to the white
space database anticipated spectrum usage at a suitable granularity."

- Gabor 

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 6:06 PM
To: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [paws] charter update

On 4/9/12 3:40 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
> one objection to the text added as a 5^th bullet point: "5. Report 
> channels for operation and other relevant information", noting that 
> The new proposal would be to replace the text in bullet 5 with "Report 
> granularity." This text seem to be fine with Joel, who raised the
objection.

Hi Gabor,

Would you be so kind as to send the actual text to the list? That will make
it easier for people to track the changes, search on this thread, etc.

Thanks!

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:13:57 +0100

Gabor

Like Gerald, I am uneasy with the use of the  word "anticipated". We can ask Ofcom, but I am sure they will just point us to their regulatory requirements which use phrasing like "a master WSD must communicate to the WSDB the following information: .... The lower and upper frequency boundaries of the in-block emissions.... The maximum in-block EIRP spectral densities (in dBm/(0.2 MHz)) that the master WSD, and its associated slaves, actually radiate ....". So their regulatory requirements are for actual usage, not anticipated. It may be foolish for the group to agree charter text that says something different. Can we just delete the word "anticipated" in the new bullet 5? The word order could be changed to " Report spectrum usage to the white space database at a suitable granularity".

Andy

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Gerald Chouinard
Sent: 15 April 2012 18:40
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [paws] charter update

Gabor,

I am wandering is the word "anticipated" will be good enough for OFCOM. You may want to verify with them. To establish a status of the spectrum usage in an area, the regulator will likely need the actual usage of this spectrum and not only its "anticipated" usage.

My two cents ...

Gerald

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Friday, 13 April, 2012 16:31
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [paws] charter update

Pete, Peter,

Thanks, Gabor

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley)
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 1:02 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [paws] charter update

- Gabor 

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 6:06 PM
To: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [paws] charter update

On 4/9/12 3:40 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
> the result may be a chatty behavior in case of frequency hopping (see 
> the
minutes).
objection.

Hi Gabor,

Thanks!

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Peter Stanforth <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 08:52:53 -0400

As a database provider I have no idea how I am supposed to comply with
this "requirement". I am not even sure I know what it means.
It is one thing to require the RAN to provide its operating boundaries in
terms of power, frequency range and even ACLR but beyond that it is pure
speculation. First a practical observation. We are currently supporting
the development of 8-9 different TVWS radios in the US. Each operates in a
very different way. How is the database supposed to "normalize" their
behavior, and for what reason?  How is the database to determine the
actual use? Some of the radios frequency hop between the channels
provided. One creates channel pairs. Some "Bond" channels, some
"aggregate" channels. All  have the capability to adapt (move) to
different channels if the operating channel is no longer appropriate. How
is this to be reported initially to the DB and at what frequency?  Under
what circumstances does the RAN report changes to the DB?  What does the
DB do with this information?

Let me be very clear. We would like to have information like this and with
some radios we actually acquire this information and use it, but it is in
a very proprietary way - in that I can't see how this would work with some
other radios rather than because it is a secret. So I am comfortable with
a mechanism that allows radios to report spectrum use (I used the word
spectrum deliberately) but until some of the issues raised above are
addressed this is just a can of worms.

I would be happy to take this discussion further with anyone off list if
you would like more details.
Peter S.

On MonApr/16/12 Mon Apr 16, 8:13 AM, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>Gabor
>
>Like Gerald, I am uneasy with the use of the  word "anticipated". We can
>ask Ofcom, but I am sure they will just point us to their regulatory
>requirements which use phrasing like "a master WSD must communicate to
>the WSDB the following information: .... The lower and upper frequency
>boundaries of the in-block emissions.... The maximum in-block EIRP
>spectral densities (in dBm/(0.2 MHz)) that the master WSD, and its
>associated slaves, actually radiate ....". So their regulatory
>requirements are for actual usage, not anticipated. It may be foolish for
>the group to agree charter text that says something different. Can we
>just delete the word "anticipated" in the new bullet 5? The word order
>could be changed to " Report spectrum usage to the white space database
>at a suitable granularity".
>
>Andy
>
>
>Gerald Chouinard
>I am wandering is the word "anticipated" will be good enough for OFCOM.
>You may want to verify with them. To establish a status of the spectrum
>usage in an area, the regulator will likely need the actual usage of this
>spectrum and not only its "anticipated" usage.
>
>My two cents ...
>
>Gerald
>
>
>list from the WG members. Could you guys take this charter proposal text
>to the iesg's  telechat?
>
>Thanks, Gabor
>
>
>milestones. The main change is adding bullet point 5: " Report to the
>white space database anticipated spectrum usage at a suitable
>granularity."
>
>- Gabor 
>
>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:37:10 +0000

Hi All,

If we focus only on the work of developing the protocol between a white
space device and white space database, I believe sufficient information is
available in Ofcom's "Draft regulatory requirements for white space
devices in the UHF TV band" updated February 16, 2012.

Of the radio-specific questions below (frequency hopping, channel bonding,
channel aggregation, etc...) I believe the relevant question for PAWS is
if Ofcom expects one range of frequencies to be reported per white space
device (one starting frequency, one stoping frequency, one radiated
spectral density -- i.e. one set of k, n & m and EIRP as specified by
Ofcom in sections 3.18, 3.19 and 4.11) or if multiple ranges are expected
or allowed. This is directly related to what information must be
transferred between the WSD and WSDB. From footnote 13 on page 7 it seems
clear that a single device may report use of multiple frequency blocks.
How any white space device uses the frequencies (frequency hopping,
channel bonding, channel aggregation, etc...) is not an issue for the
protocol between the WSD and WSDB.

Regarding what circumstances the radio should report this information, it
is made clear in 3.18 - after each channel request.

What the database does with the information is between Ofcom and database
administrators. Not to imply this is not important, it is just that when
we develop PAWS we do not need to know.

IMHO we have sufficient information to develop a protocol between the WSD
and WSDB. There are interesting questions about system operation, but
these should not prevent us from developing a protocol which meets the
requirements as drafted by Ofcom.

Kind Regards,
Scott

---

From: "Zuniga, Juan Carlos" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:54:38 -0400

I had interpreted the word "anticipated" simply as "from that point on."
However, reading people's views on the sentence I now think it is better
to remove it. 

The suggested phrase from Andy below should clear out all confusions.

Juan-Carlos

> [email-masked]
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 8:14 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Like Gerald, I am uneasy with the use of the  word "anticipated". We
> can ask Ofcom, but I am sure they will just point us to their
> regulatory requirements which use phrasing like "a master WSD must
> communicate to the WSDB the following information: .... The lower and
> upper frequency boundaries of the in-block emissions.... The maximum
> in-block EIRP spectral densities (in dBm/(0.2 MHz)) that the master
> WSD, and its associated slaves, actually radiate ....". So their
> regulatory requirements are for actual usage, not anticipated. It may
> be foolish for the group to agree charter text that says something
> different. Can we just delete the word "anticipated" in the new bullet
> 5? The word order could be changed to " Report spectrum usage to the
> white space database at a suitable granularity".
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> usage in an area, the regulator will likely need the actual usage of
> this spectrum and not only its "anticipated" usage.
> 
> My two cents ...
> 
> Gerald
> 
> 
> There doesn't seem to be any objection to this charter update text on
> the list from the WG members. Could you guys take this charter
proposal
> text to the iesg's  telechat?
> 
> Thanks, Gabor
> 
>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 03:51:40 +0000

Great. We are now stuck on one word in the charter, which is supposed to describe the scope of the work. We need a charter update because simply querying, or querying and reporting sg back is fundamentally different. But how frequently one reports back is an operational requirement, and less or more frequent reports do not result in fundamentally different features for the protocol.

Anyway, I took the controversial word 'anticipated' out from the charter update text, here's the new version:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-paws-4.txt

I ask again, does anyone has any _substantial_ problems with this version of the charter text? If yes, say so within the next few days. If not, I'll kindly ask our AD to take this up with the iesg hopefully at the next telechat.

- Gabor

-----Original Message-----
From: ext [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 5:14 AM
To: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley); [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [paws] charter update

Gabor

Andy

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Gerald Chouinard
Sent: 15 April 2012 18:40
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [paws] charter update

Gabor,

My two cents ...

Gerald

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Friday, 13 April, 2012 16:31
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [paws] charter update

Pete, Peter,

Thanks, Gabor

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley)
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 1:02 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [paws] charter update

- Gabor 

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 6:06 PM
To: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [paws] charter update

minutes).
objection.

Hi Gabor,

Thanks!

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 23:57:47 -0400

I would observe that no matter what we think governments might want, 
given that the station is reporting channel usage before it actually 
uses the channels, the usage is "anticipated usage".
The other meaningful alternative I could find would be to report actual 
usage.   That would have to be after the fact, and would be a much 
larger change in scope.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 04:28:57 +0000

> given that the station is reporting channel usage before it actually uses the channels, the usage is "anticipated usage"

I totally agree. Since Ofcom requires that reporting be made right after the channel request, it seems common sense that the report would be about anticipated usage, even if the magic word is not there. I thought we could cut the discussions short by removing it.

- Gabor

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 8:58 PM
To: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley)
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [paws] charter update

I would observe that no matter what we think governments might want, given that the station is reporting channel usage before it actually uses the channels, the usage is "anticipated usage".
The other meaningful alternative I could find would be to report actual 
usage.   That would have to be after the fact, and would be a much 
larger change in scope.

Yours,
Joel

On 4/16/2012 11:51 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
>> newly surfaced Ofcom requirements, which require the master devices 
>> to report back to the wsdb the spectrum chosen for operation. Since 
>> this aspect is not captured in the current charter, during the F2F we 
>> discussed how to capture those requirements and there was no 
>> objection to a slight charter update.
>>
>> back to the white space database use information, including the 
>> chosen channels for operation and other relevant information", noting 
>> that the result may be a chatty behavior in case of frequency hopping 
>> (see the
> minutes).
>>
>> The new proposal would be to replace the text in bullet 5 with 
>> "Report to the white space database anticipated spectrum usage at a 
>> suitable granularity." This text seem to be fine with Joel, who 
>> raised the
> objection.
>>

---

From: Peter Stanforth <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 08:15:38 -0400

Exactly!
Anticipated Use is a perfectly acceptable definition.
Peter S.

On MonApr/16/12 Mon Apr 16, 11:57 PM, "Joel M. Halpern"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Great. We are now stuck on one word in the charter, which is supposed
>>to describe the scope of the work. We need a charter update because
>>simply querying, or querying and reporting sg back is fundamentally
>>different. But how frequently one reports back is an operational
>>requirement, and less or more frequent reports do not result in
>>fundamentally different features for the protocol.
>>
>> Anyway, I took the controversial word 'anticipated' out from the
>>charter update text, here's the new version:
>> I ask again, does anyone has any _substantial_ problems with this
>>version of the charter text? If yes, say so within the next few days. If
>>not, I'll kindly ask our AD to take this up with the iesg hopefully at
>>the next telechat.
>>
>> - Gabor
>>
>>
>>can ask Ofcom, but I am sure they will just point us to their regulatory
>>requirements are for actual usage, not anticipated. It may be foolish
>>for the group to agree charter text that says something different. Can
>>we just delete the word "anticipated" in the new bullet 5? The word
>>order could be changed to " Report spectrum usage to the white space
>>database at a suitable granularity".
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>>the list from the WG members. Could you guys take this charter proposal

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 06:42:57 -0700

Folks,

1. As was said by others, "anticipated" is correct. The change in the 
charter was not to include a constant dynamic update to the database of 
what the device is currently using, but a one-time immediate report of 
what the device intends to use. If you prefer "intended" to 
"anticipated", that is also fine, but we have *not* discussed the 
possibility of writing the protocol to have an update mechanism to 
inform the database of the current actual usage. If that's needed, we 
should further discuss.

2. I should repeat the admonition I made at the meeting in Paris: We are 
*not* writing regulatory requirements into the protocol. We are writing 
the protocol to have enough flexibility to satisfy regulatory 
requirements. I am quite sure if we asked Ofcom whether they wanted 
"anticipated usage" or "actual usage" in the protocol, they'd say 
"actual usage", but that is entirely the wrong question to be asking and 
we'd be getting a bogus answer. If the regulatory requirement we are 
trying to make sure we are able to cover is "a single report by the 
device of which spectrum it will be using", then "anticipated" is our 
design requirement. Regulators (like end users in general) are not 
protocol designers and the language they use for requirements should not 
be used in our charter or protocol documents. We need to interpret what 
their high-level requirements mean for our protocol and use language 
within our documents (including our charter) that makes sense for a 
protocol.

So, my question to the list:

Does anybody think we need to have the device constantly report back to 
the database about its current usage?

If I don't hear from anybody, I'm going to assume that this is *not* 
needed and that the correct charter update to submit to the IESG should 
have "anticipated" or "intended".

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: "Malyar, John P" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 10:20:59 -0400

The questions below and the recent responses from Peter and Joel to this thread seem very reasonable regarding the charter update. I would think the purpose of the WG activity is to provide the capabilities to support the functionality needed to interoperate the WSD with the Database. For example, if a feedback loop is determined to be necessary we should provide the messaging definition. However, the frequency of the message and/or the granularity of the data should be defined by the regulatory authority implementing the rules and not be requirements forced by the interface definition. IMHO.

Kind regards,

John Malyar

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Pete Resnick [[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 9:42 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [paws] charter update

Folks,

pr

---

From: Gerald Chouinard <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:01:34 -0400

Pete,

The "anticipated usage" describes the response that the WSD will make in a
transitional state when it initiates its operation after having queried the
database.

However, since the regulatory bodies in different countries will require
that the WSD queries the database on a regular basis (e.g., within 24 hours
in the USA), the question is whether the WSD will need to send its spectrum
occupation after every query, even if it has not changed (i.e., the behavior
in a steady-state). If this is not needed, then the term "anticipated usage"
would be appropriate since the WSD would only respond when it changes its
spectrum occupation (however, see paragraph below).  If a confirmation is
needed every time, then in most of the cases, the WSD would report its
current spectrum usage and only when it happens to change its usage would it
nee to report its "anticipated usage". if it has not already re-tuned to the
new allowed channel before it sends its report to the database.

My guess is that since it will need to free the channel that it was
operating on and that is no longer available as soon as possible to avoid
interference, it will likely re-tune right away and not wait for the report
to be sent to the database over the internet before re-tuning (my guess is
this would be done over TCP with proper transmission confirmation rather
than UDP). In such case, it would then report on its "actual usage" rather
than the "anticipated usage".

As you can see, this depends on what is being assumed as the process taking
place at the WSD when it queries the database. Once this is clearly
understood, it will be to the group to decide.

Gerald

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Pete
Resnick
Sent: Tuesday, 17 April, 2012 09:43
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [paws] charter update

Folks,

pr

ask Ofcom, but I am sure they will just point us to their regulatory
requirements which use phrasing like "a master WSD must communicate to the
WSDB the following information: .... The lower and upper frequency
boundaries of the in-block emissions.... The maximum in-block EIRP spectral
densities (in dBm/(0.2 MHz)) that the master WSD, and its associated slaves,
actually radiate ....". So their regulatory requirements are for actual
usage, not anticipated. It may be foolish for the group to agree charter
text that says something different. Can we just delete the word
"anticipated" in the new bullet 5? The word order could be changed to "
Report spectrum usage to the white space database at a suitable
granularity".
Gerald Chouinard
[email-masked]

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 17:02:28 -0500

Hi Gerald,

> transitional state when it initiates its operation after having queried the

Actually, no. The "anticipated usage" (or, again, perhaps "intended 
usage") describes the response that the radio device will make 
*whenever* it queries the database. Whether it does this as a 
transitional state when it initiates its operation or at a later time in 
order to refresh is completely an implementation detail. As far as the 
protocol is concerned, the response is about which of frequencies it 
intends to use given what the WSD has reported.

> in a steady-state).

No, this is absolutely irrelevant. This is outside of the protocol 
operation and is strictly about the semantics of the use of the 
protocol. It does not effect what the protocol will require.

> If this is not needed, then the term "anticipated usage"

The server cannot tell the difference between "I have queried to 
refresh; I've been using this WS and intend to continue to do so" versus 
"I had stopped using this WS some time ago and I am making a new request 
for WS; here's what I intend to use now" versus "I am requesting WS for 
the first time; here is what I intend to use". It is protocol-irrelevant 
which case is being used.

> understood, it will be to the group to decide.

I simply disagree with your assessment.

If the group thinks that you will (potentially) need to work on a 
separate protocol piece for notifications of current usage, I think you 
should add that to the proposed charter changes. But I don't see a need 
for that protocol requirement. It seems to me that all of the 
functionality can be satisfied with a response after receiving the list 
of WS indicating intended usage.

pr

> "anticipated" in the new bullet 5? The word order could be changed to"

---

From: Gerald Chouinard <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:21:02 -0400

Hi Pete,

I believe you are reading too much into my explanation. I was merely trying
to identify whether the response back to the database will include the
actual channel being used at the time of the response or the channel that is
anticipated to be used later. This is only a question of relative timing.

Furthermore, the regulators will likely prefer getting information on the
channels that are actually being used rather than the channels that are
anticipated to be used, in other words, those that are used rather than
those that may eventually be used. In practice, if one can equate the
"anticipated usage" to the "actual usage", then there is no problem.

Gerald

-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Resnick [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, 20 April, 2012 18:02
To: Gerald Chouinard
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [paws] charter update

Hi Gerald,

pr

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Pete
> boundaries of the in-block emissions.... The maximum in-block EIRP
spectral
> list from the WG members. Could you guys take this charter proposal text
to
> milestones. The main change is adding bullet point 5: " Report to the
white

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 18:16:51 -0400

I have to diasagree.  Given that the response to a new request for 
available channels can potentially be different from the old one, and 
that the base station can make a new plan based on the response 
(including lifetimes) it receives, the answer that goes with a 
registration is the expected future usage.

If an operator wants historic actual usage reports, taht is a new 
requirement.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Nancy Bravin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:20:14 -0700

An interesting thought if an operator could use historic actual data usage reports, which could help if the information was used to find people if there was a need immediately, or 
 in disasters via last known location? Maybe this could be a function of a carrier under regs of that country ?
It could be part of information that a DB, or GPS or Broadband system could, if down, make some redundancy if others would be able to do this instead of or in addition to each other.
I know this comes under the part about if there is no communication from either side DB/WSD because of cyber/disaster(natural or not) section..was just a thought .
We left it as being left to local authorities and regulators to relax the rules so communication could take place.  

In the discussion yesterday about roaming…just a thought for those related to the cellular industry, carriers, manufacturers of components, etc. 
ANd maybe this is a ridiculous thought, could a whitespace device, if one might be in the form of a GPS cellular device, have the ability to have
the equivalent of a sim card …when going from the US to the UK, ID for FCC or UK programmed, so if one had a DB in each country…it could be applicable to both
sets of regulations? 

OUt of scope, present later under? Don't think it would work, interrupting the flow of thought, but thanks anyway, we can ask members to comment?

Sincerely, Nancy

On Apr 21, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

> I have to diasagree.  Given that the response to a new request for available channels can potentially be different from the old one, and that the base station can make a new plan based on the response (including lifetimes) it receives, the answer that goes with a registration is the expected future usage.
> 
> If an operator wants historic actual usage reports, taht is a new requirement.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
>