From presnick@qti.qualcomm.com Thu Nov 1 16:06:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37C1B21F97E9 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 16:06:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.984 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.984 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.614, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zoLzIp70U3i7 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 16:06:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sabertooth01.qualcomm.com (sabertooth01.qualcomm.com [65.197.215.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B42F121F97E7 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 16:06:15 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6883"; a="3683546" Received: from ironmsg03-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.17]) by sabertooth01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 01 Nov 2012 15:52:02 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,695,1344236400"; d="scan'208,217";a="362316958" Received: from nasanexhc08.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.39.7]) by Ironmsg03-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 01 Nov 2012 16:06:15 -0700 Received: from presnick-mac.wlan.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.5) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.1; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 16:06:14 -0700 Message-ID: <50930066.7010301@qti.qualcomm.com> Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 16:06:14 -0700 From: Pete Resnick User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: <1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E47602073D7A@008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com> In-Reply-To: <1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E47602073D7A@008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000605050104060807060309" X-Originating-IP: [172.30.39.5] Cc: paws@ietf.org Subject: Re: [paws] agenda uploaded X-BeenThere: paws@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Protocol to Access White Space database \(PAWS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 23:06:25 -0000 --------------000605050104060807060309 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/31/12 4:20 PM, Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com wrote: > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/agenda/agenda-85-paws > I have a few issues with this, at least as the final agenda. That agenda says: > PAWS working group meeting - Atlanta (IETF85) > Thursday - November 8th @ 9am > ========================================= > > Administrivia (5 min) > Blue sheets, minutes taker, jabber > > Note Well > > Agenda bashing Sure, the above is fine. > WG doc status (20 min) No, this should not be done. We have all read the docs. If the status needs to be summarized, post a message to the mailing list. There is no need to waste time in the session doing this. Please, let's not have this on the agenda. > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-vchen-paws-protocol-00.txt (Vince, 60min) This is fine, but I expect the author and the chairs to have a list of issues in the document that *can not* be resolved on the list. I do not have a problem with compiling that issues list week and not finalizing it until the day of (I understand that we all have busy schedules), but please try to collect these issues together on the mailing list so if people want to talk about any particular issues that are not otherwise noted, they will be able to identify them. > time permitting: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wu-paws-secutity-00.txt > (Yang, 20 min) I have not seen serious discussion of this document on the list. What is the purpose of this agenda item? Finally, the only feedback I got to my review of the usecases-rqmnts document was from Peter Stanforth, but haven't heard anything further. If folks aren't yet prepared to discuss this at the f2f, I will understand. (My review did come in quite late.) But if people do want to discuss it, you should post to the list so that the chairs know what you wish to discuss. (I don't expect this to be added to the agenda if there isn't more discussion on the list.) pr -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 --------------000605050104060807060309 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/31/12 4:20 PM, Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com wrote:

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/agenda/agenda-85-paws


I have a few issues with this, at least as the final agenda. That agenda says:

PAWS working group meeting - Atlanta (IETF85)
Thursday - November 8th @ 9am
=========================================

Administrivia (5 min)
Blue sheets, minutes taker, jabber

Note Well

Agenda bashing

Sure, the above is fine.

WG doc status (20 min)

No, this should not be done. We have all read the docs. If the status needs to be summarized, post a message to the mailing list. There is no need to waste time in the session doing this. Please, let's not have this on the agenda.

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-vchen-paws-protocol-00.txt (Vince, 60min)

This is fine, but I expect the author and the chairs to have a list of issues in the document that *can not* be resolved on the list. I do not have a problem with compiling that issues list week and not finalizing it until the day of (I understand that we all have busy schedules), but please try to collect these issues together on the mailing list so if people want to talk about any particular issues that are not otherwise noted, they will be able to identify them.

time permitting: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wu-paws-secutity-00.txt (Yang, 20 min)

I have not seen serious discussion of this document on the list. What is the purpose of this agenda item?

Finally, the only feedback I got to my review of the usecases-rqmnts document was from Peter Stanforth, but haven't heard anything further. If folks aren't yet prepared to discuss this at the f2f, I will understand. (My review did come in quite late.) But if people do want to discuss it, you should post to the list so that the chairs know what you wish to discuss. (I don't expect this to be added to the agenda if there isn't more discussion on the list.)

pr 
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
--------------000605050104060807060309-- From Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com Fri Nov 2 12:17:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 977A41F0C69 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 12:17:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2upFMoDlt3LV for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 12:17:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgw-da01.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 153731F0C61 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 12:17:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh105.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.31]) by mgw-da01.nokia.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id qA2JHDew007211; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 21:17:17 +0200 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.56]) by vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 2 Nov 2012 21:17:14 +0200 Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.7.183]) by 008-AM1MMR1-001.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.56]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.003; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 20:17:20 +0100 From: To: Thread-Topic: [paws] agenda uploaded Thread-Index: Ac23viR+72PYyu8ARv6AW2uDaP3obAAvvdIAACprrkA= Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 19:17:20 +0000 Message-ID: <1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E47602074750@008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com> References: <1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E47602073D7A@008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com> <50930066.7010301@qti.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <50930066.7010301@qti.qualcomm.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [24.23.137.91] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E47602074750008AM1MPN1007mg_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Nov 2012 19:17:14.0141 (UTC) FILETIME=[AA5C1CD0:01CDB92E] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Cc: paws@ietf.org Subject: Re: [paws] agenda uploaded X-BeenThere: paws@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Protocol to Access White Space database \(PAWS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 19:17:21 -0000 --_000_1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E47602074750008AM1MPN1007mg_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Pete, This group is a bit special in a sense that many of the members are new to = ietf and they are coming from different backgrounds, eg ieee, or the indust= ry involved with white spaces, etc. I would not be surprised finding out that many people on this mailing list = believed that the use cases and requirements document was approved and it w= as a done deal, as soon as they saw I forwarded it to the iesg with publica= tion requested action. People may not know that there is the concept of the AD in IETF, that ADs u= sually/always have comments and can send back the documents to the wg, and = the wg is supposed to address those comments, etc. This is not to say that we do not want to go by the rules, but people somet= imes need more explanation. I sent the document to iesg on Aug31st, you came back to the list with your= comments 2 months later, without specifying that these are the AD comments= and the wg is requested to address them, otherwise the publication process= cannot continue. People might have thought these are the comments from an = outsider, why to address them. And many people interested in that document = moved forward, the editors were let go from their employer, etc, so it is d= ifficult to get people re-involved. This might be the reasons why you did not get feedback to your comments. An= d this is why I reserved a bit of time in our F2F for this. Some background info on how did we end up with those use cases in the docum= ent: There were people coming from different SDOs, like 802.11, 802.22, and some= others, with their use cases; which from system functionality point of vie= w differ, but the requirements to the protocol between the master and the d= b are the same. We had this discussion in the group and people said this do= cument should document the use cases for white space usage, even though the= y result in the same reqs for the protocol. By not including some of the us= e case, some people felt that we want to leave that specific technology out= . Anyway, I wanted to see if people are ok now to remove/merge some of the = use cases to address your comment. That was another reason I put it on the = agenda. Finally, since we got a 2.5h slot and some documents I expected did not com= e, we'll have time left for other business, that is why the last doc showe= d up on the agenda. Hope this answers your issues. - Gabor From: ext Pete Resnick [mailto:presnick@qti.qualcomm.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 4:06 PM To: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley) Cc: paws@ietf.org Subject: Re: [paws] agenda uploaded On 10/31/12 4:20 PM, Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com wr= ote: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/agenda/agenda-85-paws I have a few issues with this, at least as the final agenda. That agenda sa= ys: PAWS working group meeting - Atlanta (IETF85) Thursday - November 8th @ 9am =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Administrivia (5 min) Blue sheets, minutes taker, jabber Note Well Agenda bashing Sure, the above is fine. WG doc status (20 min) No, this should not be done. We have all read the docs. If the status needs= to be summarized, post a message to the mailing list. There is no need to = waste time in the session doing this. Please, let's not have this on the ag= enda. http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-vchen-paws-protocol-00.txt (Vince, 60min) This is fine, but I expect the author and the chairs to have a list of issu= es in the document that *can not* be resolved on the list. I do not have a = problem with compiling that issues list week and not finalizing it until th= e day of (I understand that we all have busy schedules), but please try to = collect these issues together on the mailing list so if people want to talk= about any particular issues that are not otherwise noted, they will be abl= e to identify them. time permitting: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wu-paws-secutity-00.txt (Yang= , 20 min) I have not seen serious discussion of this document on the list. What is th= e purpose of this agenda item? Finally, the only feedback I got to my review of the usecases-rqmnts docume= nt was from Peter Stanforth, but haven't heard anything further. If folks a= ren't yet prepared to discuss this at the f2f, I will understand. (My revie= w did come in quite late.) But if people do want to discuss it, you should = post to the list so that the chairs know what you wish to discuss. (I don't= expect this to be added to the agenda if there isn't more discussion on th= e list.) pr -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 --_000_1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E47602074750008AM1MPN1007mg_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Pete,

 

This group is a bit sp= ecial in a sense that many of the members are new to ietf and they are comi= ng from different backgrounds, eg ieee, or the industry involved with white= spaces, etc.

I would not be surpris= ed finding out that many people on this mailing list believed that the use = cases and requirements document was approved and it was a done deal, as soo= n as they saw I forwarded it to the iesg with publication requested action.

People may not know th= at there is the concept of the AD in IETF, that ADs usually/always have com= ments and can send back the documents to the wg, and the wg is supposed to = address those comments, etc.

This is not to say tha= t we do not want to go by the rules, but people sometimes need more explana= tion.

I sent the document to= iesg on Aug31st, you came back to the list with your comments 2 months lat= er, without specifying that these are the AD comments and the wg is request= ed to address them, otherwise the publication process cannot continue. People might have thought these are the comments = from an outsider, why to address them. And many people interested in that d= ocument moved forward, the editors were let go from their employer, etc, so= it is difficult to get people re-involved.

This might be the reas= ons why you did not get feedback to your comments. And this is why I reserv= ed a bit of time in our F2F for this.

 

Some background info o= n how did we end up with those use cases in the document:=

There were people comi= ng from different SDOs, like 802.11, 802.22, and some others, with their us= e cases; which from system functionality point of view differ, but the requ= irements to the protocol between the master and the db are the same. We had this discussion in the group and pe= ople said this document should document the use cases for white space usage= , even though they result in the same reqs for the protocol. By not includi= ng some of the use case, some people felt that we want to leave that specific technology out. Anyway, I wanted = to see if people are ok now to remove/merge some of the use cases to addres= s your comment. That was another reason I put it on the agenda.<= /span>

 

Finally, since we got = a 2.5h slot and some documents I expected did not come, we’ll have ti= me left for  other business, that is why the last doc showed up on the= agenda.

 

Hope this answers your= issues.

 

-&nb= sp;         Gabor

 

 

 

From: ext Pete Resnick [mailto:presnick@qti.qualcomm.co= m]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 4:06 PM
To: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley)
Cc: paws@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [paws] agenda uploaded

 

On 10/31/12 4:20 PM, Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com wrote:

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/agenda/agenda-85-paws


I have a few issues with this, at least as the final agenda. That agenda sa= ys:


PAWS working group meeting - Atlanta= (IETF85)
Thursday - November 8th @ 9am
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Administrivia (5 min)
Blue sheets, minutes taker, jabber

Note Well

Agenda bashing


Sure, the above is fine.


WG doc status (20 min)


No, this should not be done. We have all read the docs. If the status needs= to be summarized, post a message to the mailing list. There is no need to = waste time in the session doing this. Please, let's not have this on the ag= enda.


http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-vchen-paws-pro= tocol-00.txt (Vince, 60min)


This is fine, but I expect the author and the chairs to have a list of issu= es in the document that *can not* be resolved on the list. I do not have a = problem with compiling that issues list week and not finalizing it until th= e day of (I understand that we all have busy schedules), but please try to collect these issues together on t= he mailing list so if people want to talk about any particular issues that = are not otherwise noted, they will be able to identify them.


time permitting: http://www= .ietf.org/id/draft-wu-paws-secutity-00.txt (Yang, 20 min)


I have not seen serious discussion of this document on the list. What is th= e purpose of this agenda item?

Finally, the only feedback I got to my review of the usecases-rqmnts docume= nt was from Peter Stanforth, but haven't heard anything further. If folks a= ren't yet prepared to discuss this at the f2f, I will understand. (My revie= w did come in quite late.) But if people do want to discuss it, you should post to the list so that the chai= rs know what you wish to discuss. (I don't expect this to be added to the a= genda if there isn't more discussion on the list.)

pr 

-- 
Pete Resnick <http:/=
/www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
--_000_1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E47602074750008AM1MPN1007mg_-- From presnick@qti.qualcomm.com Fri Nov 2 14:01:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AB4711E80D2 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 14:01:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.107 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.491, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QdkRGPP9nYfl for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 14:01:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sabertooth01.qualcomm.com (sabertooth01.qualcomm.com [65.197.215.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5AAB21F9A7F for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 14:01:18 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6884"; a="3908162" Received: from ironmsg03-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.17]) by sabertooth01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 02 Nov 2012 13:47:01 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,701,1344236400"; d="scan'208,217";a="362986340" Received: from nasanexhc04.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.17]) by Ironmsg03-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 02 Nov 2012 14:01:17 -0700 Received: from presnick-mac.wlan.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.1) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.1; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 14:01:17 -0700 Message-ID: <5094349C.5060302@qti.qualcomm.com> Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 14:01:16 -0700 From: Pete Resnick User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: <1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E47602073D7A@008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com> <50930066.7010301@qti.qualcomm.com> <1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E47602074750@008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com> In-Reply-To: <1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E47602074750@008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040303020308010100040202" X-Originating-IP: [172.30.48.1] Cc: paws@ietf.org Subject: Re: [paws] agenda uploaded X-BeenThere: paws@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Protocol to Access White Space database \(PAWS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 21:01:23 -0000 --------------040303020308010100040202 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Comments inline: On 11/2/12 12:17 PM, Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com wrote: > This group is a bit special in a sense that many of the members are > new to ietf and they are coming from different backgrounds, eg ieee, > or the industry involved with white spaces, etc. > > I would not be surprised finding out that many people on this mailing > list believed that the use cases and requirements document was > approved and it was a done deal, as soon as they saw I forwarded it to > the iesg with publication requested action. > > People may not know that there is the concept of the AD in IETF, that > ADs usually/always have comments and can send back the documents to > the wg, and the wg is supposed to address those comments, etc. > > This is not to say that we do not want to go by the rules, but people > sometimes need more explanation. > Absolutely understood. I certainly did not intend my message to be in anyway interpreted as saying that the WG is doing something wrong with regard to my comments; indeed, that part was solely a push to say, "If the WG wishes to discuss these comments, we should start that discussion on the list." More importantly, as you say: > I sent the document to iesg on Aug31st, you came back to the list with > your comments 2 months later... > Yes, for this again I must sincerely apologize. Far beyond my average for responding to requests to publish, and this again is why I did not wish to express anything wrong with the WG not discussing these comments: I cannot expect that I will be so late in providing my comments and then the WG turn around and start discussing within 2 weeks. So again, I am not worried about that. > ...without specifying that these are the AD comments and the wg is > requested to address them, otherwise the publication process cannot > continue. People might have thought these are the comments from an > outsider, why to address them. > Ah, yes, I should explain more: I need to be prepared to bring this document to the IETF list for Last Call as well as bringing to the IESG for IESG Evaluation. In its current form, I am afraid I will get large pushback from each of those bodies, so I think the WG should consider making some changes. That said, if the WG can give me the ammunition I need to defend the document in its current form, that will be OK as well. But either way, we do need to work through my comments. > And many people interested in that document moved forward, the editors > were let go from their employer, etc, so it is difficult to get people > re-involved. > Yes, that is going to be tricky. We'll see what we can figure out. > This might be the reasons why you did not get feedback to your > comments. And this is why I reserved a bit of time in our F2F for this. > Completely understood. > Some background info on how did we end up with those use cases in the > document: > > There were people coming from different SDOs, like 802.11, 802.22, and > some others, with their use cases; which from system functionality > point of view differ, but the requirements to the protocol between the > master and the db are the same. We had this discussion in the group > and people said this document should document the use cases for white > space usage, even though they result in the same reqs for the > protocol. By not including some of the use case, some people felt that > we want to leave that specific technology out. Anyway, I wanted to see > if people are ok now to remove/merge some of the use cases to address > your comment. That was another reason I put it on the agenda. > Yes, I understand not wanting to leave things out. The idea of "merging" some of the use cases together I think would be a nice way forward. We should (as a group) discuss that. > Finally, since we got a 2.5h slot and some documents I expected did > not come, we'll have time left for other business, that is why the > last doc showed up on the agenda. > > Hope this answers your issues. > It more than answers my issues regarding my AD comments on the usecases-rqmts document. Of course, it does not address my other comments regarding the agenda. Thanks for your reply. pr > *From:* ext Pete Resnick [mailto:presnick@qti.qualcomm.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, November 01, 2012 4:06 PM > *To:* Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley) > *Cc:* paws@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [paws] agenda uploaded > > On 10/31/12 4:20 PM, Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com > wrote: > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/agenda/agenda-85-paws > > > I have a few issues with this, at least as the final agenda. That > agenda says: > > > PAWS working group meeting - Atlanta (IETF85) > Thursday - November 8th @ 9am > ========================================= > > Administrivia (5 min) > Blue sheets, minutes taker, jabber > > Note Well > > Agenda bashing > > > Sure, the above is fine. > > > WG doc status (20 min) > > > No, this should not be done. We have all read the docs. If the status > needs to be summarized, post a message to the mailing list. There is > no need to waste time in the session doing this. Please, let's not > have this on the agenda. > > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-vchen-paws-protocol-00.txt (Vince, 60min) > > > This is fine, but I expect the author and the chairs to have a list of > issues in the document that *can not* be resolved on the list. I do > not have a problem with compiling that issues list week and not > finalizing it until the day of (I understand that we all have busy > schedules), but please try to collect these issues together on the > mailing list so if people want to talk about any particular issues > that are not otherwise noted, they will be able to identify them. > > > time permitting: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wu-paws-secutity-00.txt > (Yang, 20 min) > > > I have not seen serious discussion of this document on the list. What > is the purpose of this agenda item? > > Finally, the only feedback I got to my review of the usecases-rqmnts > document was from Peter Stanforth, but haven't heard anything further. > If folks aren't yet prepared to discuss this at the f2f, I will > understand. (My review did come in quite late.) But if people do want > to discuss it, you should post to the list so that the chairs know > what you wish to discuss. (I don't expect this to be added to the > agenda if there isn't more discussion on the list.) > > pr > > -- > Pete Resnick > Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 > > > _______________________________________________ > paws mailing list > paws@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws > -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 --------------040303020308010100040202 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Comments inline:

On 11/2/12 12:17 PM, Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com wrote:

This group is a bit special in a sense that many of the members are new to ietf and they are coming from different backgrounds, eg ieee, or the industry involved with white spaces, etc.

I would not be surprised finding out that many people on this mailing list believed that the use cases and requirements document was approved and it was a done deal, as soon as they saw I forwarded it to the iesg with publication requested action.

People may not know that there is the concept of the AD in IETF, that ADs usually/always have comments and can send back the documents to the wg, and the wg is supposed to address those comments, etc.

This is not to say that we do not want to go by the rules, but people sometimes need more explanation.


Absolutely understood. I certainly did not intend my message to be in anyway interpreted as saying that the WG is doing something wrong with regard to my comments; indeed, that part was solely a push to say, "If the WG wishes to discuss these comments, we should start that discussion on the list." More importantly, as you say:

I sent the document to iesg on Aug31st, you came back to the list with your comments 2 months later...


Yes, for this again I must sincerely apologize. Far beyond my average for responding to requests to publish, and this again is why I did not wish to express anything wrong with the WG not discussing these comments: I cannot expect that I will be so late in providing my comments and then the WG turn around and start discussing within 2 weeks. So again, I am not worried about that.

...without specifying that these are the AD comments and the wg is requested to address them, otherwise the publication process cannot continue. People might have thought these are the comments from an outsider, why to address them.


Ah, yes, I should explain more: I need to be prepared to bring this document to the IETF list for Last Call as well as bringing to the IESG for IESG Evaluation. In its current form, I am afraid I will get large pushback from each of those bodies, so I think the WG should consider making some changes. That said, if the WG can give me the ammunition I need to defend the document in its current form, that will be OK as well. But either way, we do need to work through my comments.

And many people interested in that document moved forward, the editors were let go from their employer, etc, so it is difficult to get people re-involved.


Yes, that is going to be tricky. We'll see what we can figure out.

This might be the reasons why you did not get feedback to your comments. And this is why I reserved a bit of time in our F2F for this.


Completely understood.

Some background info on how did we end up with those use cases in the document:

There were people coming from different SDOs, like 802.11, 802.22, and some others, with their use cases; which from system functionality point of view differ, but the requirements to the protocol between the master and the db are the same. We had this discussion in the group and people said this document should document the use cases for white space usage, even though they result in the same reqs for the protocol. By not including some of the use case, some people felt that we want to leave that specific technology out. Anyway, I wanted to see if people are ok now to remove/merge some of the use cases to address your comment. That was another reason I put it on the agenda.


Yes, I understand not wanting to leave things out. The idea of "merging" some of the use cases together I think would be a nice way forward. We should (as a group) discuss that.

Finally, since we got a 2.5h slot and some documents I expected did not come, we’ll have time left for  other business, that is why the last doc showed up on the agenda.

 

Hope this answers your issues.


It more than answers my issues regarding my AD comments on the usecases-rqmts document. Of course, it does not address my other comments regarding the agenda.

Thanks for your reply.

pr

From: ext Pete Resnick [mailto:presnick@qti.qualcomm.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 4:06 PM
To: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley)
Cc: paws@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [paws] agenda uploaded

 

On 10/31/12 4:20 PM, Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com wrote:

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/agenda/agenda-85-paws


I have a few issues with this, at least as the final agenda. That agenda says:


PAWS working group meeting - Atlanta (IETF85)
Thursday - November 8th @ 9am
=========================================

Administrivia (5 min)
Blue sheets, minutes taker, jabber

Note Well

Agenda bashing


Sure, the above is fine.


WG doc status (20 min)


No, this should not be done. We have all read the docs. If the status needs to be summarized, post a message to the mailing list. There is no need to waste time in the session doing this. Please, let's not have this on the agenda.


http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-vchen-paws-protocol-00.txt (Vince, 60min)


This is fine, but I expect the author and the chairs to have a list of issues in the document that *can not* be resolved on the list. I do not have a problem with compiling that issues list week and not finalizing it until the day of (I understand that we all have busy schedules), but please try to collect these issues together on the mailing list so if people want to talk about any particular issues that are not otherwise noted, they will be able to identify them.


time permitting: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wu-paws-secutity-00.txt (Yang, 20 min)


I have not seen serious discussion of this document on the list. What is the purpose of this agenda item?

Finally, the only feedback I got to my review of the usecases-rqmnts document was from Peter Stanforth, but haven't heard anything further. If folks aren't yet prepared to discuss this at the f2f, I will understand. (My review did come in quite late.) But if people do want to discuss it, you should post to the list so that the chairs know what you wish to discuss. (I don't expect this to be added to the agenda if there isn't more discussion on the list.)

pr 

-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
paws@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
  

-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
--------------040303020308010100040202-- From nbravin@earthlink.net Fri Nov 2 14:54:17 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1264611E80E3 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 14:54:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NBwClRYr0Osr for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 14:54:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C88F11E80E1 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 14:54:15 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=oF4M4FRAyb4WMAYG9jhOv+/cbL1Qb5xeBvS3mFSRtXyA6AIvV7+tKh8XpoYIMcz5; h=Received:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Message-Id:References:To:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [71.46.198.120] (helo=[10.0.1.2]) by elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1TUPBq-0000IU-5Y; Fri, 02 Nov 2012 17:54:10 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F10C3F37-AE7D-473D-9112-F66807D04446" From: Nancy Bravin In-Reply-To: <5094349C.5060302@qti.qualcomm.com> Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 14:54:07 -0700 Message-Id: <34B0D74A-AF8F-4E71-97B4-4572CBDBF965@earthlink.net> References: <1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E47602073D7A@008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com> <50930066.7010301@qti.qualcomm.com> <1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E47602074750@008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com> <5094349C.5060302@qti.qualcomm.com> To: Pete Resnick , Gabor Bajko X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) X-ELNK-Trace: 9a7a58baebc0701cd780f4a490ca6956d5d4673fe7faad866dc2dd984203a3adfc456cb5974b7768350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 71.46.198.120 Cc: paws@ietf.org Subject: Re: [paws] agenda uploaded X-BeenThere: paws@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Protocol to Access White Space database \(PAWS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 21:54:17 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_F10C3F37-AE7D-473D-9112-F66807D04446 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Hi Peter,=20 I will take exception to merging technologies: The blending of all or any similar groups that participated in this = effort or were considered from IEEE802. I.e. 22, 11, 16. 15 white space = groups.=20 What what done by people from all groups was to be concerned about the = "consumer" as well as industry for different locations globally where=20 WS devices can be used.=20 Would it be cheaper to have one type? At what cost=85the very people = that are in other countries,=20 that are not under the FCC/Ofcom type structure of Regulations/Devices = types? Isn't what you have advised against by not mentioning regulators = etc in the protocol? 22 is referenced, and as the first approved standard, and the only one = going forth on use cases others are not=85 15 is evoling in other ways, 16 and 11 different solutions still. It is = the market and consumer who should decide what to use, makes competition = better, and allows for further innovation from all of them, with different use = case solutions offered and involved with new innovations to come?=20 I am not eloquent, am not affiliated with a company, and have been = agnostic and inclusive technology wise as it relates to 802, but, I do = hope you understand my point, as a further comment to Gabor's. Sincerely, Nancy On Nov 2, 2012, at 2:01 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: > Comments inline: >=20 > On 11/2/12 12:17 PM, Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com wrote: >=20 >> This group is a bit special in a sense that many of the members are = new to ietf and they are coming from different backgrounds, eg ieee, or = the industry involved with white spaces, etc. >> I would not be surprised finding out that many people on this mailing = list believed that the use cases and requirements document was approved = and it was a done deal, as soon as they saw I forwarded it to the iesg = with publication requested action. >> People may not know that there is the concept of the AD in IETF, that = ADs usually/always have comments and can send back the documents to the = wg, and the wg is supposed to address those comments, etc. >> This is not to say that we do not want to go by the rules, but people = sometimes need more explanation. >=20 > Absolutely understood. I certainly did not intend my message to be in = anyway interpreted as saying that the WG is doing something wrong with = regard to my comments; indeed, that part was solely a push to say, "If = the WG wishes to discuss these comments, we should start that discussion = on the list." More importantly, as you say: >=20 >> I sent the document to iesg on Aug31st, you came back to the list = with your comments 2 months later... >=20 > Yes, for this again I must sincerely apologize. Far beyond my average = for responding to requests to publish, and this again is why I did not = wish to express anything wrong with the WG not discussing these = comments: I cannot expect that I will be so late in providing my = comments and then the WG turn around and start discussing within 2 = weeks. So again, I am not worried about that. >=20 >> ...without specifying that these are the AD comments and the wg is = requested to address them, otherwise the publication process cannot = continue. People might have thought these are the comments from an = outsider, why to address them. >=20 > Ah, yes, I should explain more: I need to be prepared to bring this = document to the IETF list for Last Call as well as bringing to the IESG = for IESG Evaluation. In its current form, I am afraid I will get large = pushback from each of those bodies, so I think the WG should consider = making some changes. That said, if the WG can give me the ammunition I = need to defend the document in its current form, that will be OK as = well. But either way, we do need to work through my comments. >=20 >> And many people interested in that document moved forward, the = editors were let go from their employer, etc, so it is difficult to get = people re-involved. >=20 > Yes, that is going to be tricky. We'll see what we can figure out. >=20 >> This might be the reasons why you did not get feedback to your = comments. And this is why I reserved a bit of time in our F2F for this. >=20 > Completely understood. >=20 >> Some background info on how did we end up with those use cases in the = document: >> There were people coming from different SDOs, like 802.11, 802.22, = and some others, with their use cases; which from system functionality = point of view differ, but the requirements to the protocol between the = master and the db are the same. We had this discussion in the group and = people said this document should document the use cases for white space = usage, even though they result in the same reqs for the protocol. By not = including some of the use case, some people felt that we want to leave = that specific technology out. Anyway, I wanted to see if people are ok = now to remove/merge some of the use cases to address your comment. That = was another reason I put it on the agenda. >=20 > Yes, I understand not wanting to leave things out. The idea of = "merging" some of the use cases together I think would be a nice way = forward. We should (as a group) discuss that. >=20 >> Finally, since we got a 2.5h slot and some documents I expected did = not come, we=92ll have time left for other business, that is why the = last doc showed up on the agenda. >> =20 >> Hope this answers your issues. >=20 > It more than answers my issues regarding my AD comments on the = usecases-rqmts document. Of course, it does not address my other = comments regarding the agenda. >=20 > Thanks for your reply. >=20 > pr >=20 >=20 >> From: ext Pete Resnick [mailto:presnick@qti.qualcomm.com]=20 >> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 4:06 PM >> To: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley) >> Cc: paws@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [paws] agenda uploaded >> =20 >> On 10/31/12 4:20 PM, Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com wrote: >> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/agenda/agenda-85-paws >>=20 >> I have a few issues with this, at least as the final agenda. That = agenda says: >>=20 >>=20 >> PAWS working group meeting - Atlanta (IETF85) >> Thursday - November 8th @ 9am >> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >>=20 >> Administrivia (5 min) >> Blue sheets, minutes taker, jabber >>=20 >> Note Well >>=20 >> Agenda bashing >>=20 >> Sure, the above is fine. >>=20 >>=20 >> WG doc status (20 min) >>=20 >> No, this should not be done. We have all read the docs. If the status = needs to be summarized, post a message to the mailing list. There is no = need to waste time in the session doing this. Please, let's not have = this on the agenda. >>=20 >>=20 >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-vchen-paws-protocol-00.txt (Vince, = 60min) >>=20 >> This is fine, but I expect the author and the chairs to have a list = of issues in the document that *can not* be resolved on the list. I do = not have a problem with compiling that issues list week and not = finalizing it until the day of (I understand that we all have busy = schedules), but please try to collect these issues together on the = mailing list so if people want to talk about any particular issues that = are not otherwise noted, they will be able to identify them. >>=20 >>=20 >> time permitting: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wu-paws-secutity-00.txt = (Yang, 20 min) >>=20 >> I have not seen serious discussion of this document on the list. What = is the purpose of this agenda item? >>=20 >> Finally, the only feedback I got to my review of the usecases-rqmnts = document was from Peter Stanforth, but haven't heard anything further. = If folks aren't yet prepared to discuss this at the f2f, I will = understand. (My review did come in quite late.) But if people do want to = discuss it, you should post to the list so that the chairs know what you = wish to discuss. (I don't expect this to be added to the agenda if there = isn't more discussion on the list.) >>=20 >> pr=20 >>=20 >> --=20 >> Pete Resnick >> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> paws mailing list >> paws@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws >> =20 >=20 > --=20 > Pete Resnick > Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 > _______________________________________________ > paws mailing list > paws@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws --Apple-Mail=_F10C3F37-AE7D-473D-9112-F66807D04446 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Hi = Peter, 
  I will take exception to merging = technologies:
The blending of all or any similar groups that = participated in this effort or were considered from IEEE802. I.e. 22, = 11, 16. 15 white space groups. 
What what done by people = from all groups was to be concerned about the "consumer" as well as = industry for different locations globally where 
WS = devices can be used. 
Would it be cheaper to have one = type? At what cost=85the very people that are in other = countries, 
that are not under the FCC/Ofcom type = structure of Regulations/Devices types? Isn't what you have advised = against by not mentioning regulators etc in the protocol?
22 = is referenced, and as the first approved standard, and the only one = going forth on use cases others are not=85
15 is evoling in = other ways, 16 and 11 different solutions still. It is the market and = consumer who should decide what to use, makes competition = better,
and allows for further innovation from all of them, = with different use case solutions offered and involved with new = innovations to come? 
I am not eloquent, am not = affiliated with a company, and have been agnostic and inclusive = technology wise as it relates to 802, but,  I do hope you = understand my point, as a further comment to = Gabor's.

Sincerely, Nancy

On Nov 2, 2012, at 2:01 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:

Comments inline:

On 11/2/12 12:17 PM, Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com = wrote:

This group is a bit special in a sense that many of the members are new to ietf and they are coming from different backgrounds, eg ieee, or the industry involved with white spaces, etc.

I would not be surprised finding out that many people on this mailing list believed that the use cases and requirements document was approved and it was a done deal, as soon as they saw I forwarded it to the iesg with publication requested action.

People may not know that there is the concept of the AD in IETF, that ADs usually/always have comments and can send back the documents to the wg, and the wg is supposed to address those comments, = etc.

This is not to say that we do not want to go by the rules, but people sometimes need more explanation.


Absolutely understood. I certainly did not intend my message to be in anyway interpreted as saying that the WG is doing something wrong with regard to my comments; indeed, that part was solely a push to say, "If the WG wishes to discuss these comments, we should start that discussion on the list." More importantly, as you say:

I sent the document to iesg on Aug31st, you came back to the list with your comments 2 months later...


Yes, for this again I must sincerely apologize. Far beyond my average for responding to requests to publish, and this again is why I did not wish to express anything wrong with the WG not discussing these comments: I cannot expect that I will be so late in providing my comments and then the WG turn around and start discussing within 2 weeks. So again, I am not worried about that.

...without specifying that these are the AD comments and the wg is requested to address them, otherwise the publication process cannot continue. People might have thought these are the comments from an outsider, why to address them.


Ah, yes, I should explain more: I need to be prepared to bring this document to the IETF list for Last Call as well as bringing to the IESG for IESG Evaluation. In its current form, I am afraid I will get large pushback from each of those bodies, so I think the WG should consider making some changes. That said, if the WG can give me the ammunition I need to defend the document in its current form, that will be OK as well. But either way, we do need to work through my comments.

And many people interested in that document moved forward, the editors were let go from their employer, etc, so it is difficult to get people re-involved.


Yes, that is going to be tricky. We'll see what we can figure out.

This might be the reasons why you did not get feedback to your comments. And this is why I reserved a bit of time in our F2F for this.


Completely understood.

Some background info on how did we end up with those use cases in the document:

There were people coming from different SDOs, like 802.11, 802.22, and some others, with their use cases; which from system functionality point of view differ, but the requirements to the protocol between the master and the db are the same. We had this discussion in the group and people said this document should document the use cases for white space usage, even though they result in the same reqs for the protocol. By not including some of the use case, some people felt that we want to leave that specific technology out. Anyway, I wanted to see if people are ok now to remove/merge some of the use cases to address your comment. That was another reason I put it on the agenda.


Yes, I understand not wanting to leave things out. The idea of "merging" some of the use cases together I think would be a nice way forward. We should (as a group) discuss that.

Finally, since we got a 2.5h slot and some documents I expected did not come, we=92ll have time left for  other business, that is why the last = doc showed up on the agenda.

 

Hope this answers your issues.


It more than answers my issues regarding my AD comments on the usecases-rqmts document. Of course, it does not address my other comments regarding the agenda.

Thanks for your reply.

pr

From: ext Pete Resnick [mailto:presnick@qti.qualcomm.com= ]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 4:06 PM
To: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley)
Cc: paws@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [paws] agenda uploaded

 

On 10/31/12 4:20 PM, Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com wrote:

http://w= ww.ietf.org/proceedings/85/agenda/agenda-85-paws


I have a few issues with this, at least as the final agenda. That agenda says:


PAWS working group meeting - Atlanta (IETF85)
Thursday - November 8th @ 9am
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Administrivia (5 min)
Blue sheets, minutes taker, jabber

Note Well

Agenda bashing


Sure, the above is fine.


WG doc status (20 min)


No, this should not be done. We have all read the docs. If the status needs to be summarized, post a message to the mailing list. There is no need to waste time in the session doing this. Please, let's not have this on the agenda.


http://ww= w.ietf.org/id/draft-vchen-paws-protocol-00.txt (Vince, 60min)


This is fine, but I expect the author and the chairs to have a list of issues in the document that *can not* be resolved on the list. I do not have a problem with compiling that issues list week and not finalizing it until the day of (I understand that we all have busy schedules), but please try to collect these issues together on the mailing list so if people want to talk about any particular issues that are not otherwise noted, they will be able to identify them.


time permitting: http://www.i= etf.org/id/draft-wu-paws-secutity-00.txt (Yang, 20 min)


I have not seen serious discussion of this document on the list. What is the purpose of this agenda item?

Finally, the only feedback I got to my review of the usecases-rqmnts document was from Peter Stanforth, but haven't heard anything further. If folks aren't yet prepared to discuss this at the f2f, I will understand. (My review did come in quite late.) But if people do want to discuss it, you should post to the list so that the chairs know what you wish to discuss. (I don't expect this to be added to the agenda if there isn't more discussion on the list.)

pr 

-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/=
~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
paws@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/m=
ailman/listinfo/paws
  

--=20
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~p=
resnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
_______________________________________________
paws mailing = list
paws@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/ma= ilman/listinfo/paws

= --Apple-Mail=_F10C3F37-AE7D-473D-9112-F66807D04446-- From presnick@qti.qualcomm.com Tue Nov 6 06:32:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA82521F8922 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 06:32:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.41 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.41 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.189, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bxLMM+O5Q6-9 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 06:32:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from sabertooth01.qualcomm.com (sabertooth01.qualcomm.com [65.197.215.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DD3221F8909 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 06:32:13 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6887"; a="4480936" Received: from ironmsg03-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.18]) by sabertooth01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 06 Nov 2012 06:17:42 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,722,1344236400"; d="scan'208";a="361014667" Received: from nasanexhc08.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.39.7]) by Ironmsg03-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 06 Nov 2012 06:32:12 -0800 Received: from dhcp-1747.meeting.ietf.org (172.30.39.5) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.1; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 06:32:11 -0800 Message-ID: <50991F6B.8040204@qti.qualcomm.com> Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 09:32:11 -0500 From: Pete Resnick User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nancy Bravin References: <1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E47602073D7A@008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com> <50930066.7010301@qti.qualcomm.com> <1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E47602074750@008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com> <5094349C.5060302@qti.qualcomm.com> <34B0D74A-AF8F-4E71-97B4-4572CBDBF965@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <34B0D74A-AF8F-4E71-97B4-4572CBDBF965@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [172.30.39.5] Cc: paws@ietf.org Subject: Re: [paws] agenda uploaded X-BeenThere: paws@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Protocol to Access White Space database \(PAWS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 14:32:13 -0000 Hi Nancy, I think you misunderstood the intention of my comment regarding "merging". See inline: On 11/2/12 5:54 PM, Nancy Bravin wrote: > I will take exception to merging technologies: > The blending of all or any similar groups that participated in this > effort or were considered from IEEE802. I.e. 22, 11, 16. 15 white > space groups. > What what done by people from all groups was to be concerned about the > "consumer" as well as industry for different locations globally where > WS devices can be used. > Would it be cheaper to have one type? At what cost…the very people > that are in other countries, > that are not under the FCC/Ofcom type structure of Regulations/Devices > types? Isn't what you have advised against by not mentioning > regulators etc in the protocol? I am *not* suggesting merging the technologies themselves. Of course that's not something that the IETF can do anything about at all. All I was suggesting was that in the list of use cases in the document, we might be able to combine a few of the technologies into one section of the document where those technologies have a lot in common. The problem is not the number of technologies; it's fine to mention them all. It's just that there is a lot of duplicated information in the descriptions, and I think it would make the document clearer to group a few of them together. For example, the hotspot example in 4.2.1 and the wide-area/rural example in 4.2.2 have almost identical architectures, so I think we might be able to mention both use cases in one section. I'm sorry if I confused the issue by using the word "merging". I was not referring to the technologies. I only meant that we could mention multiple technologies in a single section of the use cases document when it makes sense to group them together. Does that make sense? pr -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 From peter@spectrumbridge.com Tue Nov 6 07:37:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D398821F88E0 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 07:37:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.185 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.185 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.414, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9e758o8JhKXQ for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 07:37:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.spectrumbridge.com (mail.spectrumbridge.com [64.132.248.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD53821F87EA for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 07:37:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from shelby.sbi.com ([127.0.0.1]) by shelby ([127.0.0.1]) with mapi; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:37:25 -0500 From: Peter Stanforth To: Pete Resnick Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:38:06 -0500 Thread-Topic: [paws] agenda uploaded Thread-Index: Ac28NJ6+Mmz7NckgR3iDNwDhkP8CIw== Message-ID: <0D9F1CE5-A27F-4F96-8D6A-8217D3A4284A@spectrumbridge.com> References: <1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E47602073D7A@008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com> <50930066.7010301@qti.qualcomm.com> <1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E47602074750@008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com> <5094349C.5060302@qti.qualcomm.com> <34B0D74A-AF8F-4E71-97B4-4572CBDBF965@earthlink.net> <50991F6B.8040204@qti.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <50991F6B.8040204@qti.qualcomm.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "paws@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [paws] agenda uploaded X-BeenThere: paws@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Protocol to Access White Space database \(PAWS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 15:37:27 -0000 SXQgaXMgdGhvc2UgcmVndWxhdG9ycyBhZ2FpbiEgIFVzaW5nIEZDQyBydWxlczoNClRob3NlIHR3 byB1c2UgY2FzZXMgbWF5IGhhdmUgc2ltaWxhciBhcmNoaXRlY3R1cmVzIGJ1dCBhcyBhIERCIHBy b3ZpZGVyIEkgaGF2ZSB0byB0cmVhdCB0aGVtIHZlcnkgZGlmZmVyZW50bHkuIFNwZWNpZmljYWxs eSBydXJhbCBpcyBmaXhlZCB0byBmaXhlZCBhbmQgaG90c3BvdCBpcyBtb2RlIDIgdG8gbW9kZSAx DQpUaGUgbWVzc2FnaW5nIGlzIGRpZmZlcmVudC4gVGhlIGZpeGVkIGRldmljZSBpcyByZXF1aXJl ZCB0byByZWdpc3RlciB0aGUgbW9kZSAyIGRvZXMgbm90LiBUaGUgbW9kZSAyIGhhcyB0byB2YWxp ZGF0ZSB0aGUgRkNDaWQgb2YgaXRzIGFzc29jaWF0ZWQgbW9kZSAxIGRldmljZXMuIEEgZml4ZWQg ZGV2aWNlIGRvZXMgbm90IHZhbGlkYXRlIHRoZSBmaXhlZCBzbGF2ZXMgYXNzb2NpYXRlZCB3aXRo IGl0LiANCkEgZml4ZWQgc2xhdmUsIGZpeGVkIG1hc3RlciBhbmQgbW9kZSAyIHRhbGsgdG8gdGhl IERCIHRoZSBtb2RlIDEgbmV2ZXIgZG9lcy4NCg0KDQpPbiBOb3YgNiwgMjAxMiwgYXQgOTozMiBB TSwgIlBldGUgUmVzbmljayIgPHByZXNuaWNrQHF0aS5xdWFsY29tbS5jb20+IHdyb3RlOg0KDQo+ IEhpIE5hbmN5LA0KPiANCj4gSSB0aGluayB5b3UgbWlzdW5kZXJzdG9vZCB0aGUgaW50ZW50aW9u IG9mIG15IGNvbW1lbnQgcmVnYXJkaW5nIA0KPiAibWVyZ2luZyIuIFNlZSBpbmxpbmU6DQo+IA0K PiBPbiAxMS8yLzEyIDU6NTQgUE0sIE5hbmN5IEJyYXZpbiB3cm90ZToNCj4gDQo+PiBJIHdpbGwg dGFrZSBleGNlcHRpb24gdG8gbWVyZ2luZyB0ZWNobm9sb2dpZXM6DQo+PiBUaGUgYmxlbmRpbmcg b2YgYWxsIG9yIGFueSBzaW1pbGFyIGdyb3VwcyB0aGF0IHBhcnRpY2lwYXRlZCBpbiB0aGlzIA0K Pj4gZWZmb3J0IG9yIHdlcmUgY29uc2lkZXJlZCBmcm9tIElFRUU4MDIuIEkuZS4gMjIsIDExLCAx Ni4gMTUgd2hpdGUgDQo+PiBzcGFjZSBncm91cHMuDQo+PiBXaGF0IHdoYXQgZG9uZSBieSBwZW9w bGUgZnJvbSBhbGwgZ3JvdXBzIHdhcyB0byBiZSBjb25jZXJuZWQgYWJvdXQgdGhlIA0KPj4gImNv bnN1bWVyIiBhcyB3ZWxsIGFzIGluZHVzdHJ5IGZvciBkaWZmZXJlbnQgbG9jYXRpb25zIGdsb2Jh bGx5IHdoZXJlDQo+PiBXUyBkZXZpY2VzIGNhbiBiZSB1c2VkLg0KPj4gV291bGQgaXQgYmUgY2hl YXBlciB0byBoYXZlIG9uZSB0eXBlPyBBdCB3aGF0IGNvc3TigKZ0aGUgdmVyeSBwZW9wbGUgDQo+ PiB0aGF0IGFyZSBpbiBvdGhlciBjb3VudHJpZXMsDQo+PiB0aGF0IGFyZSBub3QgdW5kZXIgdGhl IEZDQy9PZmNvbSB0eXBlIHN0cnVjdHVyZSBvZiBSZWd1bGF0aW9ucy9EZXZpY2VzIA0KPj4gdHlw ZXM/IElzbid0IHdoYXQgeW91IGhhdmUgYWR2aXNlZCBhZ2FpbnN0IGJ5IG5vdCBtZW50aW9uaW5n IA0KPj4gcmVndWxhdG9ycyBldGMgaW4gdGhlIHByb3RvY29sPw0KPiANCj4gSSBhbSAqbm90KiBz dWdnZXN0aW5nIG1lcmdpbmcgdGhlIHRlY2hub2xvZ2llcyB0aGVtc2VsdmVzLiBPZiBjb3Vyc2Ug DQo+IHRoYXQncyBub3Qgc29tZXRoaW5nIHRoYXQgdGhlIElFVEYgY2FuIGRvIGFueXRoaW5nIGFi b3V0IGF0IGFsbC4gQWxsIEkgDQo+IHdhcyBzdWdnZXN0aW5nIHdhcyB0aGF0IGluIHRoZSBsaXN0 IG9mIHVzZSBjYXNlcyBpbiB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQsIHdlIA0KPiBtaWdodCBiZSBhYmxlIHRvIGNv bWJpbmUgYSBmZXcgb2YgdGhlIHRlY2hub2xvZ2llcyBpbnRvIG9uZSBzZWN0aW9uIG9mIA0KPiB0 aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQgd2hlcmUgdGhvc2UgdGVjaG5vbG9naWVzIGhhdmUgYSBsb3QgaW4gY29tbW9u LiBUaGUgcHJvYmxlbSANCj4gaXMgbm90IHRoZSBudW1iZXIgb2YgdGVjaG5vbG9naWVzOyBpdCdz IGZpbmUgdG8gbWVudGlvbiB0aGVtIGFsbC4gSXQncyANCj4ganVzdCB0aGF0IHRoZXJlIGlzIGEg bG90IG9mIGR1cGxpY2F0ZWQgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gaW4gdGhlIGRlc2NyaXB0aW9ucywgDQo+IGFu ZCBJIHRoaW5rIGl0IHdvdWxkIG1ha2UgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IGNsZWFyZXIgdG8gZ3JvdXAgYSBm ZXcgb2YgdGhlbSANCj4gdG9nZXRoZXIuIEZvciBleGFtcGxlLCB0aGUgaG90c3BvdCBleGFtcGxl IGluIDQuMi4xIGFuZCB0aGUgDQo+IHdpZGUtYXJlYS9ydXJhbCBleGFtcGxlIGluIDQuMi4yIGhh dmUgYWxtb3N0IGlkZW50aWNhbCBhcmNoaXRlY3R1cmVzLCBzbyANCj4gSSB0aGluayB3ZSBtaWdo dCBiZSBhYmxlIHRvIG1lbnRpb24gYm90aCB1c2UgY2FzZXMgaW4gb25lIHNlY3Rpb24uDQo+IA0K PiBJJ20gc29ycnkgaWYgSSBjb25mdXNlZCB0aGUgaXNzdWUgYnkgdXNpbmcgdGhlIHdvcmQgIm1l cmdpbmciLiBJIHdhcyBub3QgDQo+IHJlZmVycmluZyB0byB0aGUgdGVjaG5vbG9naWVzLiBJIG9u bHkgbWVhbnQgdGhhdCB3ZSBjb3VsZCBtZW50aW9uIA0KPiBtdWx0aXBsZSB0ZWNobm9sb2dpZXMg aW4gYSBzaW5nbGUgc2VjdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgdXNlIGNhc2VzIGRvY3VtZW50IHdoZW4gDQo+IGl0 IG1ha2VzIHNlbnNlIHRvIGdyb3VwIHRoZW0gdG9nZXRoZXIuDQo+IA0KPiBEb2VzIHRoYXQgbWFr ZSBzZW5zZT8NCj4gDQo+IHByDQo+IA0KPiAtLSANCj4gUGV0ZSBSZXNuaWNrPGh0dHA6Ly93d3cu cXVhbGNvbW0uY29tL35wcmVzbmljay8+DQo+IFF1YWxjb21tIFRlY2hub2xvZ2llcywgSW5jLiAt ICsxICg4NTgpNjUxLTQ0NzgNCj4gDQo+IF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQo+IHBhd3MgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQo+IHBhd3NAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4g aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9wYXdzDQo= From nbravin@earthlink.net Tue Nov 6 08:07:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8303721F8A26 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 08:07:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r-bmiJIL-V1H for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 08:07:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FD3021F8A1E for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 08:07:58 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=DMcSIPIy3tJMWNxWwcljlbCiFvd1tT9hViTAp7B3k9xAKsOi45UtDWQ1ttAD+KDf; h=Received:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [71.46.198.120] (helo=[10.0.1.2]) by elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1TVlgU-0008Oh-VQ; Tue, 06 Nov 2012 11:07:27 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Nancy Bravin In-Reply-To: <0D9F1CE5-A27F-4F96-8D6A-8217D3A4284A@spectrumbridge.com> Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 08:07:25 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2326976A-AA1E-4169-8D1F-4822BE4F2AFD@earthlink.net> References: <1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E47602073D7A@008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com> <50930066.7010301@qti.qualcomm.com> <1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E47602074750@008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com> <5094349C.5060302@qti.qualcomm.com> <34B0D74A-AF8F-4E71-97B4-4572CBDBF965@earthlink.net> <50991F6B.8040204@qti.qualcomm.com> <0D9F1CE5-A27F-4F96-8D6A-8217D3A4284A@spectrumbridge.com> To: Peter Stanforth , Pete Resnick X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) X-ELNK-Trace: 9a7a58baebc0701cd780f4a490ca6956d5d4673fe7faad864d937947a8b8965b11516252aae9859e350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 71.46.198.120 Cc: paws@ietf.org Subject: Re: [paws] agenda uploaded X-BeenThere: paws@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Protocol to Access White Space database \(PAWS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 16:07:59 -0000 Peter, Pete,=20 I do not think it is advisable to change any of the use cases under one = umbrella because they are similar, and if it were me I would have it = rural/remote but that is me=85. For regulators who will have different rules, i.e., Peter's comments, I = agree. On many other issues you mentioned I do agree, but not this. Sorry. N Ogen Nov 6, 2012, at 7:38 AM, Peter Stanforth wrote: > It is those regulators again! Using FCC rules: > Those two use cases may have similar architectures but as a DB = provider I have to treat them very differently. Specifically rural is = fixed to fixed and hotspot is mode 2 to mode 1 > The messaging is different. The fixed device is required to register = the mode 2 does not. The mode 2 has to validate the FCCid of its = associated mode 1 devices. A fixed device does not validate the fixed = slaves associated with it.=20 > A fixed slave, fixed master and mode 2 talk to the DB the mode 1 never = does. >=20 >=20 > On Nov 6, 2012, at 9:32 AM, "Pete Resnick" = wrote: >=20 >> Hi Nancy, >>=20 >> I think you misunderstood the intention of my comment regarding=20 >> "merging". See inline: >>=20 >> On 11/2/12 5:54 PM, Nancy Bravin wrote: >>=20 >>> I will take exception to merging technologies: >>> The blending of all or any similar groups that participated in this=20= >>> effort or were considered from IEEE802. I.e. 22, 11, 16. 15 white=20 >>> space groups. >>> What what done by people from all groups was to be concerned about = the=20 >>> "consumer" as well as industry for different locations globally = where >>> WS devices can be used. >>> Would it be cheaper to have one type? At what cost=85the very people=20= >>> that are in other countries, >>> that are not under the FCC/Ofcom type structure of = Regulations/Devices=20 >>> types? Isn't what you have advised against by not mentioning=20 >>> regulators etc in the protocol? >>=20 >> I am *not* suggesting merging the technologies themselves. Of course=20= >> that's not something that the IETF can do anything about at all. All = I=20 >> was suggesting was that in the list of use cases in the document, we=20= >> might be able to combine a few of the technologies into one section = of=20 >> the document where those technologies have a lot in common. The = problem=20 >> is not the number of technologies; it's fine to mention them all. = It's=20 >> just that there is a lot of duplicated information in the = descriptions,=20 >> and I think it would make the document clearer to group a few of them=20= >> together. For example, the hotspot example in 4.2.1 and the=20 >> wide-area/rural example in 4.2.2 have almost identical architectures, = so=20 >> I think we might be able to mention both use cases in one section. >>=20 >> I'm sorry if I confused the issue by using the word "merging". I was = not=20 >> referring to the technologies. I only meant that we could mention=20 >> multiple technologies in a single section of the use cases document = when=20 >> it makes sense to group them together. >>=20 >> Does that make sense? >>=20 >> pr >>=20 >> --=20 >> Pete Resnick >> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> paws mailing list >> paws@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws From Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com Wed Nov 7 19:24:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B88C221F8A7F for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 19:24:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ut3AfOyTJOhG for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 19:24:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mgw-sa01.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.1.47]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C87CA21F8A7E for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 19:24:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (in-mx.nokia.com [10.160.244.31]) by mgw-sa01.nokia.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id qA83OrZs003191 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 05:24:53 +0200 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.48]) by vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 8 Nov 2012 05:24:52 +0200 Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.7.183]) by 008-AM1MMR1-014.mgdnok.nokia.com ([2002:4136:1e30::4136:1e30]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.003; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 03:24:51 +0000 From: To: Thread-Topic: remote participation Thread-Index: Ac23vmTmshqODAEESiWt76RoQI/1OAFoaTGg Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 03:24:51 +0000 Message-ID: <1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E47602077116@008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com> References: <1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E47602073D92@008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com> In-Reply-To: <1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E47602073D92@008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [130.129.68.80] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Nov 2012 03:24:52.0866 (UTC) FILETIME=[9DFBFE20:01CDBD60] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Subject: Re: [paws] remote participation X-BeenThere: paws@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Protocol to Access White Space database \(PAWS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 03:24:57 -0000 If you would like to join remotely, go to http://www.meetecho.com/ietf85/pa= ws for video and screen sharing, and use Skype to call to ietf.paws to list= en to audio (please call 5 min before the meeting start, which is 9am PT). - Gabor From: paws-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:paws-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Baj= ko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley) Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 4:23 PM To: paws@ietf.org Subject: [paws] remote participation All, For those of you who can't make it to Atlanta, there will be remote partici= pation possibility. As usual, we'll use Meetecho for video and screen shari= ng, and skype for audio. I'll send out the link and other info the day before the meeting. - Gabor From Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com Wed Nov 7 19:40:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8213C21F8A84 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 19:40:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Fa37fZ+Jl34 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 19:40:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mgw-da02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 511B921F8A8F for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 19:40:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh106.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.32]) by mgw-da02.nokia.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id qA83dmiP031177 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 05:40:12 +0200 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.48]) by vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 8 Nov 2012 05:40:06 +0200 Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.7.183]) by 008-AM1MMR1-014.mgdnok.nokia.com ([2002:4136:1e30::4136:1e30]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.003; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 03:40:05 +0000 From: To: Thread-Topic: remote participation Thread-Index: Ac23vmTmshqODAEESiWt76RoQI/1OAFoaTGgAACX6fA= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 03:40:04 +0000 Message-ID: <1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E47602077143@008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com> References: <1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E47602073D92@008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com> <1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E47602077116@008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com> In-Reply-To: <1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E47602077116@008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [130.129.68.80] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Nov 2012 03:40:06.0352 (UTC) FILETIME=[BE76E500:01CDBD62] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Subject: Re: [paws] remote participation X-BeenThere: paws@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Protocol to Access White Space database \(PAWS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 03:40:19 -0000 Clarification: meeting start is 9am ET, not PT. -----Original Message----- From: paws-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:paws-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Baj= ko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley) Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 7:25 PM To: paws@ietf.org Subject: Re: [paws] remote participation If you would like to join remotely, go to http://www.meetecho.com/ietf85/pa= ws for video and screen sharing, and use Skype to call to ietf.paws to list= en to audio (please call 5 min before the meeting start, which is 9am PT). - Gabor From: paws-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:paws-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Baj= ko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley) Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 4:23 PM To: paws@ietf.org Subject: [paws] remote participation All, For those of you who can't make it to Atlanta, there will be remote partici= pation possibility. As usual, we'll use Meetecho for video and screen shari= ng, and skype for audio. I'll send out the link and other info the day before the meeting. - Gabor _______________________________________________ paws mailing list paws@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws From internet-drafts@ietf.org Fri Nov 9 01:18:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71D7821F8613; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 01:18:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.566 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V8358XBnIYgX; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 01:18:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB33F21F85F0; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 01:18:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.36 Message-ID: <20121109091812.30854.44498.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 01:18:12 -0800 Cc: paws@ietf.org Subject: [paws] I-D Action: draft-ietf-paws-protocol-00.txt X-BeenThere: paws@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Protocol to Access White Space database \(PAWS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 09:18:13 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Protocol to Access WS database Working Gr= oup of the IETF. Title : Protocol to Access Spectrum Database Author(s) : Vincent Chen Subir Das Zhu Lei John Malyar Peter J. McCann Filename : draft-ietf-paws-protocol-00.txt Pages : 37 Date : 2012-11-09 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 database" (PAWS). 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-00 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From ietf@meetecho.com Fri Nov 9 09:08:41 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6550121F84E1 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 09:08:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.719 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HokEWZGi98Qn for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 09:08:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpdg9.aruba.it (smtpdg9.aruba.it [62.149.158.239]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE46D21F84DF for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 09:08:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from [130.129.19.11] ([130.129.19.11]) by smtpcmd03.ad.aruba.it with bizsmtp id MV8e1k00e0ELJoa01V8fSy; Fri, 09 Nov 2012 18:08:39 +0100 Message-ID: <509D3894.40504@meetecho.com> Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 18:08:36 +0100 From: Meetecho IETF support User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "paws@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [paws] Meetecho session recording X-BeenThere: paws@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Protocol to Access White Space database \(PAWS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 17:08:41 -0000 Dear all, the full recording (synchronized video, audio, slides and jabber room) of this WG session at IETF-85 is available. You can watch it by accessing the following URL: http://www.meetecho.com/ietf85/recordings For the chair(s): please feel free to put the link to the recording in the minutes, if you think this might be useful. In case of problems with the playout, just drop an e-mail to ietf-team@meetecho.com. Cheers, the Meetecho team -- Meetecho s.r.l. Web Conferencing and Collaboration Tools www.meetecho.com From richard@shockey.us Sun Nov 11 09:43:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BF0321F854C for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:43:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.465 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.465 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.800, BAYES_60=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DegF2RVRFwOv for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:43:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from oproxy7-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy7-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.55.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8DAF021F8531 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:43:07 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 15640 invoked by uid 0); 11 Nov 2012 17:42:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box462.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.62) by oproxy7.bluehost.com with SMTP; 11 Nov 2012 17:42:45 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shockey.us; s=default; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:To:From; bh=Q0Z72JcyrQmMYQLunZ7dQPUBLDWvpSImrEhheRCnNNU=; b=pCZaPLbhxqMCNw3vM6U8Hm2XHH3WDlJDXcm3VErfPiJqrkmPl/RHOEQ/rmJv/qeaELerCgKO8AUFg/aUVUum3G33XGhlCAx7t3pCiVItKiaBejRdB2WTkPjZ2+YQndbF; Received: from [71.191.243.130] (port=56801 helo=RSHOCKEYPC) by box462.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TXbYT-0004OR-4e for paws@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 10:42:45 -0700 From: "Richard Shockey" To: Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 12:42:43 -0500 Message-ID: <002f01cdc033$f48081a0$dd8184e0$@us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0030_01CDC00A.0BAA79A0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac3AM/PETEdCVZODQsyBWDUc3i+qBw== Content-Language: en-us X-Identified-User: {3286:box462.bluehost.com:shockeyu:shockey.us} {sentby:smtp auth 71.191.243.130 authed with richard@shockey.us} Subject: [paws] FYI Canada joins the Paws Party .. X-BeenThere: paws@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Protocol to Access White Space database \(PAWS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:43:08 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0030_01CDC00A.0BAA79A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Industry Canada issues White Paper on 700 access. http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/vwapj/TVWhiteSpace-October2012-eng. pdf/$file/TVWhiteSpace-October2012-eng.pdf Richard Shockey Shockey Consulting Chairman of the Board of Directors SIP Forum PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683 < mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> skype-linkedin-facebook: rshockey101 http//www.sipforum.org ------=_NextPart_000_0030_01CDC00A.0BAA79A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Industry = Canada issues White Paper on 700 access.

 

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/vwapj/TVWhiteS= pace-October2012-eng.pdf/$file/TVWhiteSpace-October2012-eng.pdf

 

Richard = Shockey
Shockey Consulting
Chairman of the Board of Directors SIP = Forum
PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us>
skype= -linkedin-facebook: rshockey101
http//www.sipforum.org

 

------=_NextPart_000_0030_01CDC00A.0BAA79A0-- From SiewYoon.Tan@ofcom.org.uk Thu Nov 22 02:13:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1464A21F843D for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 02:13:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.108 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wnnw6dIo0MDP for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 02:13:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail1.bemta3.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta3.messagelabs.com [195.245.230.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1829421F8431 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 02:13:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from [85.158.138.51:21840] by server-12.bemta-3.messagelabs.com id BD/3C-22757-CDAFDA05; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 10:13:48 +0000 X-Env-Sender: SiewYoon.Tan@ofcom.org.uk X-Msg-Ref: server-14.tower-174.messagelabs.com!1353579228!24681328!1 X-Originating-IP: [194.33.160.65] X-StarScan-Received: X-StarScan-Version: 6.6.1.8; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 21686 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2012 10:13:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO WOK-INTRA-EDG02.intra.ofcom.local) (194.33.160.65) by server-14.tower-174.messagelabs.com with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 22 Nov 2012 10:13:48 -0000 Received: from WOK-INTRA-EXC02.intra.ofcom.local (10.130.130.68) by WOK-INTRA-EDG02.intra.ofcom.local (10.130.239.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.289.1; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 10:13:47 +0000 Received: from WOK-INTRA-EXC01.intra.ofcom.local ([fe80::f0b6:2506:a722:c58b]) by WOK-INTRA-EXC02.intra.ofcom.local ([fe80::550e:933d:224e:6a19%15]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 10:14:04 +0000 From: Siew Yoon Tan To: Siew Yoon Tan Thread-Topic: For information : Ofcom consultation on TV white space device Thread-Index: Ac3ImhjHCHRLQMfTQF2kCWhWVbvdCQ== Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 10:14:03 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.130.131.249] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C08077EB39F9304D8629FF0B0FF9FB1699D5A161WOKINTRAEXC01in_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 13:22:03 -0800 Subject: [paws] For information : Ofcom consultation on TV white space device X-BeenThere: paws@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Protocol to Access White Space database \(PAWS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 10:13:54 -0000 --_000_C08077EB39F9304D8629FF0B0FF9FB1699D5A161WOKINTRAEXC01in_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear colleagues, Ofcom has today published a consultation on a framework for the operation of white space devices = in the UK. Best regards, Siew Yoon :: Siew Yoon Tan Technical Regulation Specialist Spectrum Policy Group Direct : +44 (0) 20 7981 3066 Mobile : +44 (0) 78 1132 6573 siewyoon.tan@ofcom.org.uk :: Ofcom Riverside House 2a Southwark Bridge Road London SE1 9HA 020 7981 3000 www.ofcom.org.uk ________________________________ ***************************************************************************= *************************************** For more information visit www.ofcom.org.uk This email (and any attachments) is confidential and intended for the use o= f the addressee only. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of th= e 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 oth= erwise. ***************************************************************************= *************************************** --_000_C08077EB39F9304D8629FF0B0FF9FB1699D5A161WOKINTRAEXC01in_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear colleagues,

 

Ofcom has today published a consultation on a framework for the operation of white space devices in= the UK.

 

 

Best regards,

 

Siew Yoon

 

 

:: Siew Yoon Tan

   Technical= Regulation Specialist

   Spectrum Polic= y Group

   Direct : += 44 (0) 20 7981 3066

   Mobile : += 44 (0) 78 1132 6573

   = siewyoon.tan@ofcom.org.uk

 

:: Ofcom

   Riverside Hous= e

   2a Southwark B= ridge Road

   London SE1 9HA=

   020 7981 3000<= /span>

   www.ofcom.org.u= k

 



***************************************************************************= ***************************************
For more information visit www.ofcom.org.uk

This email (and any attachments) is confidential and intended for the use o= f the addressee only.

If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of th= e 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 oth= erwise.
***************************************************************************= ***************************************
 --_000_C08077EB39F9304D8629FF0B0FF9FB1699D5A161WOKINTRAEXC01in_-- From Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com Mon Nov 26 11:15:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFEDA21F84E7 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:15:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pnR2AwYag6dF for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:15:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mgw-sa02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.1.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ED1C21F84E6 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:15:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh102.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.23]) by mgw-sa02.nokia.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id qAQJEuri013643 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 21:14:57 +0200 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.24]) by vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 26 Nov 2012 21:14:56 +0200 Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.7.199]) by 008-AM1MMR1-008.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.24]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.003; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 19:14:55 +0000 From: To: Thread-Topic: minutes uploaded Thread-Index: Ac3MCkScpF45tgSoTNioe1hwcAeHNw== Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 19:14:55 +0000 Message-ID: <1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E476020A5603@008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [24.23.137.91] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E476020A5603008AM1MPN1007mg_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Nov 2012 19:14:56.0783 (UTC) FILETIME=[5266F1F0:01CDCC0A] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Subject: [paws] minutes uploaded X-BeenThere: paws@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Protocol to Access White Space database \(PAWS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 19:15:02 -0000 --_000_1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E476020A5603008AM1MPN1007mg_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/minutes/minutes-85-paws thanks Pete for the minutes. - Gabor --_000_1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E476020A5603008AM1MPN1007mg_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/minutes/minutes-85-pa= ws

 

thanks Pete for the minutes.

 

-     &= nbsp;    Gabor

--_000_1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E476020A5603008AM1MPN1007mg_-- From Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com Mon Nov 26 11:35:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7109A21F846E for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:35:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ElKlr6MNMO36 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:35:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mgw-da01.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7150E21F8231 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:35:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com (in-mx.nokia.com [10.160.244.30]) by mgw-da01.nokia.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id qAQJZMkg031270 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 21:35:28 +0200 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.26]) by vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 26 Nov 2012 21:35:25 +0200 Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.7.199]) by 008-AM1MMR1-010.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.26]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.003; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 19:35:24 +0000 From: To: Thread-Topic: outcome of the Atlanta F2F Thread-Index: Ac3MCpz8yXU0s63cQe2G0Z5wTPChvA== Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 19:35:24 +0000 Message-ID: <1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E476020A6629@008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [24.23.137.91] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E476020A6629008AM1MPN1007mg_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Nov 2012 19:35:25.0551 (UTC) FILETIME=[2ECE0FF0:01CDCC0D] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Subject: [paws] outcome of the Atlanta F2F X-BeenThere: paws@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Protocol to Access White Space database \(PAWS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 19:35:32 -0000 --_000_1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E476020A6629008AM1MPN1007mg_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable We had good technical discussions during our last F2F, with good proposals = on how to close some of the open issues. I'll try to summarize the outcome = in the next couple of emails, starting with the least controversial items: There were no objections against Vince's proposal to use JSON-RPC, as indicated in slides 7&8 of http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/= slides/slides-85-paws-1.pptx Keeping the PAWS and HTTP layers separate and Indicating errors as proposed= in slide 9 of http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-paws-1.p= ptx Use RFC5491 for geo-location encoding (someone needs to JSON encode it), in= stead of RFC6225, to support requirement D8. Use vCard encoding for the contact field (slide 18 of http://www.ietf.org/p= roceedings/85/slides/slides-85-paws-1.pptx ) I'd like to confirm these on the list. If you see any issues with the above= , please notify the list asap. Thanks, Gabor --_000_1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E476020A6629008AM1MPN1007mg_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

We had good technical discussions during our last F2= F, with good proposals on how to close some of the open issues. I’ll = try to summarize the outcome in the next couple of emails, starting with th= e least controversial items:

 

There were no objections against Vince’s propo= sal to use

 

JSON-RPC, as indicated in slides 7&8 of http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-paws-1.pptx

Keeping the PAWS and HTTP layers separate and Indica= ting errors as proposed in slide 9 of http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-paws-1.pptx

Use RFC5491 for geo-location encoding (someone needs= to JSON encode it), instead of RFC6225, to support requirement D8.

Use vCard encoding for the contact field (slide 18 o= f http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-paws-1.pptx )<= /o:p>

 

I’d like to confirm these on the list. If you = see any issues with the above, please notify the list asap.

 

Thanks, Gabor

 

 

 

 

 

--_000_1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E476020A6629008AM1MPN1007mg_-- From vchen@google.com Mon Nov 26 12:35:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6066821F853C for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:35:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Umcu8dUBlJv3 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:35:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qc0-f182.google.com (mail-qc0-f182.google.com [209.85.216.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0C8F21F851B for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:35:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qc0-f182.google.com with SMTP id k19so13695908qcs.27 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:35:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=LeRFx6yFPnKDa8PnKKZoh3DKaU2HCIga6KidVt9e8qw=; b=btOgW4HGWz/OsW1WpBEq7NyOf2+B62ygyWZA4mp7ZANUv5RAvPSj0cHMWhexLWnsLr gDTnFO6BzvZ4Js0rYVu/I2uQ2lxaiOkT0Citp56UpiEtrzytoLXkaNqfV1+qoSziZEyj NchVA4FsbRTuLPZfmP9tW7FplhvwLThFppOPntuc2dC5c5TIgUbDObidRKeMFOE3JwRH BbQCGeJrXTrnO9Do2a3RGAbZeodbNRVf0kzu7ggeJO6p0L7zf0dvb8pbmp8tKrbK6EEP m/TIQcriVWAbbX6vh/j5fznQVu6b3/vogQb48DYpAeyUjl0FFhtm4eRi5Qme4+3+3aJ7 9JFg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=LeRFx6yFPnKDa8PnKKZoh3DKaU2HCIga6KidVt9e8qw=; b=fGTKCHnjqXLAzfnCYa4SqlZRPdY5N9XKemoYaIP3XbE7UxVmwONhnVKreVcZZN9i19 3BIeXzHbcUPhs//Kr8C2Vqn3PkF8zJaN0CM6PjFH9dqUvWjaxsdleMir7JmmhgwHVxrd lJSEOoJTOZazHZq8GkWxVMHrFHHbn0hX9ZfbABm1lpqjQ2G/8PwPXT9srCRcRXZxVz4Z RG3hXiIOD/rUreYaoULJ7yZ9asx06oZsrMlsR67py8JQImtpzI2FGEUGDx3zp/jHUwEN r+aONVF/xCPSR3HkzunOs/3bi9yRPBa48uiQNYyywzK6+LWIT+UeTItEIe5F0bUV4ipY HdAg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.174.86 with SMTP id s22mr1188884qcz.80.1353962152180; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:35:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.76.34 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:35:52 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E476020A6629@008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com> References: <1ECAFF543A2FED4EA2BEB6CACE08E476020A6629@008-AM1MPN1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:35:52 -0800 Message-ID: From: Vincent Chen To: Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0050450166791ebbb604cf6be1a7 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlta1AZpSO/vXG52yhW15+9rOILLe8VXoYglFQ/peHugEoiZ9qvuvOjBlnCEaPIpLtVP2uaIcmHiRTNJaFAqnlzw91HAfms9LCoHadaMT1ts5iFMrnyiMzSDTbS/Sm0ald6SJJyVWOitLwPpdKfPb5dWYy6ioVbDNd9DAlh/d1n/pIFeofyXdimDmvL2SGn/lOC2ndX Cc: paws@ietf.org Subject: Re: [paws] outcome of the Atlanta F2F X-BeenThere: paws@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Protocol to Access White Space database \(PAWS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:35:59 -0000 --0050450166791ebbb604cf6be1a7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Gabor, On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 11:35 AM, wrote: > We had good technical discussions during our last F2F, with good > proposals on how to close some of the open issues. I=92ll try to summariz= e > the outcome in the next couple of emails, starting with the least > controversial items:**** > > ** ** > > There were no objections against Vince=92s proposal to use ** ** > > ** ** > > JSON-RPC, as indicated in slides 7&8 of > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-paws-1.pptx**** > > Keeping the PAWS and HTTP layers separate and Indicating errors as > proposed in slide 9 of > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-paws-1.pptx > FYI. Because of the acceptance of JSON-RPC, slide 9 is not quite accurate, but the intent remains the same. The error codes would be returned within JSON-RPC error messages. > **** > > Use RFC5491 for geo-location encoding (someone needs to JSON encode it), > instead of RFC6225, to support requirement D8.**** > > Use vCard encoding for the contact field (slide 18 of > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-paws-1.pptx )**** > > ** ** > > I=92d like to confirm these on the list. If you see any issues with the > above, please notify the list asap.**** > > ** ** > > Thanks, Gabor**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > paws mailing list > paws@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws > > --=20 -vince --0050450166791ebbb604cf6be1a7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
G= abor,

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 11:35 AM, = <Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com> wrote:

We had good technical discussions during our last F2= F, with good proposals on how to close some of the open issues. I=92ll try = to summarize the outcome in the next couple of emails, starting with the le= ast controversial items:

=A0

There were no objections against Vince=92s proposal = to use

=A0

JSON-RPC, as indicated in slides 7&8 of http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-paws-1.pptx<= u>

Keeping the PAWS and HTTP layers separate and Indica= ting errors as proposed in slide 9 of http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-paws= -1.pptx


FYI. Because of= the acceptance of JSON-RPC, slide 9 is not quite accurate, but the intent = remains the same. The error codes would be returned
within JSON-RPC error messages.
=A0

Use RFC5491 for geo-location encoding (someone needs= to JSON encode it), instead of RFC6225, to support requirement D8.<= u>

Use vCard encoding for the contact field (slide 18 o= f http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-paws-1.pptx )

=A0

I=92d like to confirm these on the list. If you see = any issues with the above, please notify the list asap.

=A0

Thanks, Gabor

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0


_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
paws@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws




--
-vince
--0050450166791ebbb604cf6be1a7--