Hi SM,
I responded inline to your latest comments, below, where I took additional action.
Thanks,
Tony
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:33 AM, SM <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Anthony,Ok.
At 17:00 12-02-2013, Anthony Mancuso wrote:
In Section 1.1:
"Academia and Industry have studied multiple cognitive radio [2]
mechanisms for use in such a scenario."
The reference seemed odd. It took me some time to understand that it was put in to address a comment. However, the first (external) reference that defines that is a 404.
TODO(amancuso): fix link
See the section after the Abstract and Section 2.1.
I think the MUST below is one of the two boilerplate words you had a comment on. Is there another?
TM: Now i see the two. I removed the second (redundant) RFC 2119 wording and reference.
Ok.
In response to earlier comments, this section was reworded and "MUST" changed to "must". I assume this is what you were questioning.
In my opinion you don't really have to get into all that. I'll defer to the author.
----
In Section 4.2:
"A simplified operation scenario of offloading content, such as video
stream, from the a metered Internet connection to the a WS connection
consists of the following steps:"
What is a metered Internet connection?
----
Usage is monitored (metered) and paid for. I rephrased to clarify: "more congested or costly Internet connection, such as a metered (fee-based-on-usage) wire, wireless, or satellite service."
TM: Agreed. Simply referred to the "metered" Internet service as a paid service.
Ok.
cleaned up protocol and operational requirements in response to earlier comments. This is a good example of a use case, but didn't fit comfortably as a P or O requirement, and was deleted from requirements sections.
Ok.
White Space Database (used to be defined in terminology). Changed it simply to "database".
I agree about that container. :-) The draft is trying to convince me that white space is better for the Internet connection (see my previous comment about metered). The requirements is about a protocol to Access Spectrum Database. IP connectivity is a lower-layer issue. I am ok with the above text.
This is a rather large container of worms. We kicked it around for about a half-hour and concluded that since this doc is for the Internet Engineering Task Force, most readers will understand (and forgive). Nonetheless, this is a good point, so I generalized it as follows (while retaining the commonly used (and loosely-understood) term: "The database and the master device MUST be connected (e.g., through the Internet)."
Ok.
This section only intends to state the general requirement. It is my understanding that the current draft of the protocol specification specifies JSON encoding of location parameters that is compatible with GEOPRIV.
Regards,
-sm