From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from xc.sipsolutions.net ([83.246.72.84]:42122 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752360AbZC0ITS (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 04:19:18 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC] regulatory information interpretation rules From: Johannes Berg To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: linux-wireless , Michael Green , Jouni Malinen , "John W. Linville" In-Reply-To: <1237712542.5100.766.camel@johannes.local> (sfid-20090322_100234_495492_0385D4F0) References: <1237712542.5100.766.camel@johannes.local> (sfid-20090322_100234_495492_0385D4F0) Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-ueurdSIRgx3mVjepq+cu" Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:18:42 +0100 Message-Id: <1238141922.4331.100.camel@johannes.local> (sfid-20090327_091923_361026_29E179F5) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --=-ueurdSIRgx3mVjepq+cu Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 10:02 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > Ok, so I'm thinking about the interpretation rules for the regulatory > information. I even dreamt about this tonight, unfortunately... The posting about the German rules made me look at them again and I realised that there's no way (with either interpretation of the rules) we can currently handle the German requirement of using only 0.25mW/25kHz, 10mW/MHz or 50mW/MHz. Previously we had only thought about 20 MHz (or above) channels so that wasn't a restriction (since you then reach the max EIRP permitted), but with smaller bandwidths that does become a limit, a 5 MHz channel can only have a max EIRP of 50mW, 50mW or 250mW respectively. Should we incorporate that into regdb while we're changing things there anyway? I'd add an optional field into the database like this: (5150 - 5250 @ 40), (N/A, 200mW, 0.25 mW / 25 kHz), ... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ optional and extend netlink with it as well -- this requires a regdb version change but not a netlink protocol change (except for the addition of the new limit). Does that make sense? johannes --=-ueurdSIRgx3mVjepq+cu Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Johannes Berg (powerbook) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJJzIvfAAoJEKVg1VMiehFYsCkP/0gvJymORZC/0yrNfI3s+57N RqkSkG2gAzjGF7WjvWerYm9+GHWatu+SxH7HWsOHmmwgU8n5m5NbrTF68cZF8923 fRVmvp58x3uaatdvNfbC00fjEIEuKOoPVf6ZobJkcVefm/GJrmzOQUaKBjLJA114 gEHlo9BJP1e9t0xYqHqBfemHvJrjRG66X30PX8goZJT1QmocBPSRfFP0jjP8ACoi wMfYmLwgHQfKKE6Exx3Gp0tWLBCUcRmV1l1YTeBlHG+1zqerPCRxt9UREaWZgnOL PIMVrj8xtXgb+yPFuIE28ISOjEC81GmiS5IQ5LGt5cYisEAb1pmOvKyXp+vi42Y5 76Qdl+iW4zapUPhtdCU0tn/b/fCJ4H5QIUqiJjnNbIEwD4wr2FNR1Qy3mxkKANyw JAwgFDBOQTrQdE8qQNyDWVd+vP52CSHL2GlwkbHvEFfqhXdnD9m9Um0kIKMpLV6z KR/AgBH1qpeHkKSIF9FSfXGE8rOGVvIvJrAmZZBPLff7DcN2MfUwmtt88jlNB2q6 L5PNGucD/yy9lfQDlEyAzGobgMXRsKFDJpOgspSad7FlWJUzw2kV35usKy48qJRF ePDhlXvTNdWHIYU+A7qf9xbCwTJddKsX8TUA6CyGswHVsj7p6MjkPghhm3Ahn3yy T8w8EN+UwPnipH258cjn =cJsc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-ueurdSIRgx3mVjepq+cu--