[RFC] wireless-regdb: Add A band in IL

[RFC] wireless-regdb: Add A band in IL

[Emmanuel Grumbach]

A band in allowed in IL, according to official document issued by the Ministry
of Communications: http://www.moc.gov.il/sip_storage/FILES/1/1061.pdf.

5150 - 5250 200mW e.i.r.p. OUTDOOR forbidden
5250 - 5350 200mW e.i.r.p. OUTDOOR forbidden DFS mandatory

40Mhz is allowed in A band for every WiFi-Alliance certified equipment.

***************************************************************
Not to be merged for the moment
***************************************************************

CC: Michael Green <Michael.Green@atheros.com>
CC: David Quan <David.Quan@atheros.com>
Signed-off-by: Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com>
---
 db.txt |    2 ++
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt
index e63a43e..d49c397 100644
--- a/db.txt
+++ b/db.txt
@@ -319,6 +319,8 @@ country IE:
 
 country IL:
 	(2402 - 2482 @ 40), (N/A, 20)
+	(5150 - 5250 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR
+	(5250 - 5350 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR, DFS
 
 country IN:
 	(2402 - 2482 @ 40), (N/A, 20)
-- 
1.6.4.2

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

Re: [RFC] wireless-regdb: Add A band in IL

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Emmanuel Grumbach
<emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com> wrote:
> A band in allowed in IL, according to official document issued by the Ministry
> of Communications: http://www.moc.gov.il/sip_storage/FILES/1/1061.pdf.
>
> 5150 - 5250 200mW e.i.r.p. OUTDOOR forbidden
> 5250 - 5350 200mW e.i.r.p. OUTDOOR forbidden DFS mandatory
>
> 40Mhz is allowed in A band for every WiFi-Alliance certified equipment.
>
> ***************************************************************
> Not to be merged for the moment
> ***************************************************************
>
> CC: Michael Green <Michael.Green@atheros.com>
> CC: David Quan <David.Quan@atheros.com>
> Signed-off-by: Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com>
> ---
>  db.txt |    2 ++
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt
> index e63a43e..d49c397 100644
> --- a/db.txt
> +++ b/db.txt
> @@ -319,6 +319,8 @@ country IE:
>
>  country IL:
>        (2402 - 2482 @ 40), (N/A, 20)
> +       (5150 - 5250 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR
> +       (5250 - 5350 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR, DFS

I believe the one standing issue here is you are enabling HT40 on 5
GHz, how about enabling 2.4 GHz first, and then through a separate
patch and time/review we review the HT40 stuff, unless you are in no
rush to get 2.4 GHz enabled.

  Luis

RE: [RFC] wireless-regdb: Add A band in IL

[Grumbach, Emmanuel]
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Re: [RFC] wireless-regdb: Add A band in IL

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Grumbach, Emmanuel
<emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com> wrote:
>>>  country IL:
>>>        (2402 - 2482 @ 40), (N/A, 20)
>>> +       (5150 - 5250 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR
>>> +       (5250 - 5350 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR, DFS
>>
>>I believe the one standing issue here is you are enabling HT40 on 5
>>GHz, how about enabling 2.4 GHz first, and then through a separate
>>patch and time/review we review the HT40 stuff, unless you are in no
>>rush to get 2.4 GHz enabled.
>>
>
> I am not following... HT40 on 2.4 GHz is already enabled...
> What should I enable in 2.4 GHz ?

Sorry I meant 5 GHz.

  Luis

RE: [RFC] wireless-regdb: Add A band in IL

[Grumbach, Emmanuel]
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==

Re: [RFC] wireless-regdb: Add A band in IL

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Grumbach, Emmanuel
<emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Grumbach, Emmanuel
>><emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>  country IL:
>>>>>        (2402 - 2482 @ 40), (N/A, 20)
>>>>> +       (5150 - 5250 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR
>>>>> +       (5250 - 5350 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR, DFS
>>>>
>>>>I believe the one standing issue here is you are enabling HT40 on 5
>>>>GHz, how about enabling 2.4 GHz first, and then through a separate
>>>>patch and time/review we review the HT40 stuff, unless you are in no
>>>>rush to get 2.4 GHz enabled.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am not following... HT40 on 2.4 GHz is already enabled...
>>> What should I enable in 2.4 GHz ?
>>
>>Sorry I meant 5 GHz.
>
> Actually 40GHz is less a problem in 5GHz than in 2.4GHz since in 2.4GHz
> I need to have a "Coexistence mechanism", which is not required in 5GHz.
> This Coexistence mechanism is apparently implemented by one OEM under the
> name "Clear Channel Assessment (CCA)".
>
> In short, I don't think there is any special issue with 40MHz in 5GHz, but
> I may miss something here... In any case, I have no problem with sending
> a patch that allows 5GHz in 20MHz for the moment.
> I can also have a look at the EEPROM in our NICs which is supposed to have
> all the needed limitations. Details to follow tomorrow.

OK thanks for the clarification Emmanuel, please give Michael some
time to review.

  Luis

Re: [RFC] wireless-regdb: Add A band in IL

[Emmanuel Grumbach]

> <emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com> wrote:
> >>On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Grumbach, Emmanuel
> >><emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com> wrote:
> >>>>>  country IL:
> >>>>>        (2402 - 2482 @ 40), (N/A, 20)
> >>>>> +       (5150 - 5250 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR
> >>>>> +       (5250 - 5350 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR, DFS
> >>>>
> >>>>I believe the one standing issue here is you are enabling HT40 on 5
> >>>>GHz, how about enabling 2.4 GHz first, and then through a separate
> >>>>patch and time/review we review the HT40 stuff, unless you are in no
> >>>>rush to get 2.4 GHz enabled.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I am not following... HT40 on 2.4 GHz is already enabled...
> >>> What should I enable in 2.4 GHz ?
> >>
> >>Sorry I meant 5 GHz.
> >
> > Actually 40GHz is less a problem in 5GHz than in 2.4GHz since in 2.4GHz
> > I need to have a "Coexistence mechanism", which is not required in 5GHz.
> > This Coexistence mechanism is apparently implemented by one OEM under the
> > name "Clear Channel Assessment (CCA)".
> >
> > In short, I don't think there is any special issue with 40MHz in 5GHz, but
> > I may miss something here... In any case, I have no problem with sending
> > a patch that allows 5GHz in 20MHz for the moment.
> > I can also have a look at the EEPROM in our NICs which is supposed to have
> > all the needed limitations. Details to follow tomorrow.
>
> OK thanks for the clarification Emmanuel, please give Michael some
> time to review.
>


How much time ? :-)

] wireless-regdb: Add A band in IL

[Michael Green]

Hi All,

I agree it's okay to enable HT40 in 5GHz for Israel. 

I suggest the 2010 doc from Emmanuel be reference in the dbase so implementers are aware of the conditions by MOC for enabling HT20/HT40 in both bands during regulatory conformance of the product in Israel.



Michael Green
Atheros Communications, Inc.
mgreen@atheros.com
Desk:   +1-781-400-1491
Mobile: +1-508-380-4921

-----Original Message-----
From: Emmanuel Grumbach [mailto:egrumbach@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 3:47 PM
To: Luis R. Rodriguez
Cc: Grumbach, Emmanuel; linville@tuxdriver.com; linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org; Michael Green; David Quan
Subject: Re: [RFC] wireless-regdb: Add A band in IL

> <emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com> wrote:
> >>On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Grumbach, Emmanuel
> >><emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com> wrote:
> >>>>>  country IL:
> >>>>>        (2402 - 2482 @ 40), (N/A, 20)
> >>>>> +       (5150 - 5250 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR
> >>>>> +       (5250 - 5350 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR, DFS
> >>>>
> >>>>I believe the one standing issue here is you are enabling HT40 on 5
> >>>>GHz, how about enabling 2.4 GHz first, and then through a separate
> >>>>patch and time/review we review the HT40 stuff, unless you are in no
> >>>>rush to get 2.4 GHz enabled.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I am not following... HT40 on 2.4 GHz is already enabled...
> >>> What should I enable in 2.4 GHz ?
> >>
> >>Sorry I meant 5 GHz.
> >
> > Actually 40GHz is less a problem in 5GHz than in 2.4GHz since in 2.4GHz
> > I need to have a "Coexistence mechanism", which is not required in 5GHz.
> > This Coexistence mechanism is apparently implemented by one OEM under the
> > name "Clear Channel Assessment (CCA)".
> >
> > In short, I don't think there is any special issue with 40MHz in 5GHz, but
> > I may miss something here... In any case, I have no problem with sending
> > a patch that allows 5GHz in 20MHz for the moment.
> > I can also have a look at the EEPROM in our NICs which is supposed to have
> > all the needed limitations. Details to follow tomorrow.
>
> OK thanks for the clarification Emmanuel, please give Michael some
> time to review.
>


How much time ? :-)

Re: [RFC] wireless-regdb: Add A band in IL

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Emmanuel Grumbach <egrumbach@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com> wrote:
>> >>On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Grumbach, Emmanuel
>> >><emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>  country IL:
>> >>>>>        (2402 - 2482 @ 40), (N/A, 20)
>> >>>>> +       (5150 - 5250 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR
>> >>>>> +       (5250 - 5350 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR, DFS
>> >>>>
>> >>>>I believe the one standing issue here is you are enabling HT40 on 5
>> >>>>GHz, how about enabling 2.4 GHz first, and then through a separate
>> >>>>patch and time/review we review the HT40 stuff, unless you are in no
>> >>>>rush to get 2.4 GHz enabled.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I am not following... HT40 on 2.4 GHz is already enabled...
>> >>> What should I enable in 2.4 GHz ?
>> >>
>> >>Sorry I meant 5 GHz.
>> >
>> > Actually 40GHz is less a problem in 5GHz than in 2.4GHz since in 2.4GHz
>> > I need to have a "Coexistence mechanism", which is not required in 5GHz.
>> > This Coexistence mechanism is apparently implemented by one OEM under the
>> > name "Clear Channel Assessment (CCA)".
>> >
>> > In short, I don't think there is any special issue with 40MHz in 5GHz, but
>> > I may miss something here... In any case, I have no problem with sending
>> > a patch that allows 5GHz in 20MHz for the moment.
>> > I can also have a look at the EEPROM in our NICs which is supposed to have
>> > all the needed limitations. Details to follow tomorrow.
>>
>> OK thanks for the clarification Emmanuel, please give Michael some
>> time to review.
>>
>
>
> How much time ? :-)

Seems he just finished and sent his notes to the list.

  Luis

Re: [RFC] wireless-regdb: Add A band in IL

[John W. Linville]

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 09:49:29AM +0300, Emmanuel Grumbach wrote:
> A band in allowed in IL, according to official document issued by the Ministry
> of Communications: http://www.moc.gov.il/sip_storage/FILES/1/1061.pdf.
> 
> 5150 - 5250 200mW e.i.r.p. OUTDOOR forbidden
> 5250 - 5350 200mW e.i.r.p. OUTDOOR forbidden DFS mandatory
> 
> 40Mhz is allowed in A band for every WiFi-Alliance certified equipment.
> 
> ***************************************************************
> Not to be merged for the moment
> ***************************************************************
> 
> CC: Michael Green <Michael.Green@atheros.com>
> CC: David Quan <David.Quan@atheros.com>
> Signed-off-by: Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com>
> ---
>  db.txt |    2 ++
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt
> index e63a43e..d49c397 100644
> --- a/db.txt
> +++ b/db.txt
> @@ -319,6 +319,8 @@ country IE:
>  
>  country IL:
>  	(2402 - 2482 @ 40), (N/A, 20)
> +	(5150 - 5250 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR
> +	(5250 - 5350 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR, DFS
>  
>  country IN:
>  	(2402 - 2482 @ 40), (N/A, 20)

Is this issue now settled?

John
-- 
John W. Linville		Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville@tuxdriver.com			might be all we have.  Be ready.

Re: [RFC] wireless-regdb: Add A band in IL

[Emmanuel Grumbach]

Emmanuel Grumbach
egrumbach@gmail.com


On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 21:42, John W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 09:49:29AM +0300, Emmanuel Grumbach wrote:
> > A band in allowed in IL, according to official document issued by the Ministry
> > of Communications: http://www.moc.gov.il/sip_storage/FILES/1/1061.pdf.
> >
> > 5150 - 5250 200mW e.i.r.p. OUTDOOR forbidden
> > 5250 - 5350 200mW e.i.r.p. OUTDOOR forbidden DFS mandatory
> >
> > 40Mhz is allowed in A band for every WiFi-Alliance certified equipment.
> >
> > ***************************************************************
> > Not to be merged for the moment
> > ***************************************************************
> >
> > CC: Michael Green <Michael.Green@atheros.com>
> > CC: David Quan <David.Quan@atheros.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  db.txt |    2 ++
> >  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt
> > index e63a43e..d49c397 100644
> > --- a/db.txt
> > +++ b/db.txt
> > @@ -319,6 +319,8 @@ country IE:
> >
> >  country IL:
> >       (2402 - 2482 @ 40), (N/A, 20)
> > +     (5150 - 5250 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR
> > +     (5250 - 5350 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR, DFS
> >
> >  country IN:
> >       (2402 - 2482 @ 40), (N/A, 20)
>
> Is this issue now settled?

Yes, I think that Michael Green agreed for this patch. Once he will
reply to make sure, we will be able to move on to a real patch.

wireless-regdb: Add A band in IL - And general point regarding tx power limits in the dbase

[Michael Green]

Here are my comments on the proposed patch...

country IL:
> >       (2402 - 2482 @ 40), (N/A, 20)
> > +     (5150 - 5250 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR
> > +     (5250 - 5350 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR, DFS


a) I agree with channels above and enabling HT40 per above.

b) I think all entries in the dbase should be in dBm (not mW).   dBm vs. mW are absolutely equivalent. No reason to retain "mW" unit from the source docs.  I think this was agreed by all before, but wanted to reiterate. 

c) I don't understand why "Indoor/Outdoor" is stated in the table for any/all countries.   5150-5250 is globally allocated for indoor use.  So I am not reviewing/commenting on the indoor/outdoor comments in the dbase.


d) Reminder...Israel and most other countries state max tx power limit in 'EIRP' (ie takes into account actual antenna gain of the end device).  Therefore, the entire dbase must be clearly flagged so developers know the tx power limits in this dbase only apply when devices have 0dB (or negative) gain antennas.  

In other words, the software (or the hw/sw developer) must somehow reduce tx powers below the values in the dbase, dB-for-dB, when antenna+cable has positive gain.

The exception is FCC target power, where FCC (and the dBase) quotes "conducted power" rather than EIRP.

Issue d) is not a concern for manufacturers/developers who produce products that limit regulatory tx powers in the hw (factory set/limited). In that case they take into account actual antenna gains during original conformance testing and program in compliant tx powers into hw (and don't rely at all on the tx powers in the dbase).

But developers who don't have tx powers limited in hw, who actually use the tx power in the dbase, must take into account antenna gain as explained above, else the product may not comply with tx limits for most countries.  

Fine if you want to discuss point d) separately since it's a global issue (not limited to this particular IL patch).

tks,

Michael Green
Atheros Communications, Inc.
mgreen@atheros.com
Desk:   +1-781-400-1491
Mobile: +1-508-380-4921


-----Original Message-----
From: Emmanuel Grumbach [mailto:egrumbach@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 1:41 AM
To: John W. Linville
Cc: Emmanuel Grumbach; linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org; Michael Green; David Quan
Subject: Re: [RFC] wireless-regdb: Add A band in IL

Emmanuel Grumbach
egrumbach@gmail.com


On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 21:42, John W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 09:49:29AM +0300, Emmanuel Grumbach wrote:
> > A band in allowed in IL, according to official document issued by the Ministry
> > of Communications: http://www.moc.gov.il/sip_storage/FILES/1/1061.pdf.
> >
> > 5150 - 5250 200mW e.i.r.p. OUTDOOR forbidden
> > 5250 - 5350 200mW e.i.r.p. OUTDOOR forbidden DFS mandatory
> >
> > 40Mhz is allowed in A band for every WiFi-Alliance certified equipment.
> >
> > ***************************************************************
> > Not to be merged for the moment
> > ***************************************************************
> >
> > CC: Michael Green <Michael.Green@atheros.com>
> > CC: David Quan <David.Quan@atheros.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  db.txt |    2 ++
> >  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt
> > index e63a43e..d49c397 100644
> > --- a/db.txt
> > +++ b/db.txt
> > @@ -319,6 +319,8 @@ country IE:
> >
> >  country IL:
> >       (2402 - 2482 @ 40), (N/A, 20)
> > +     (5150 - 5250 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR
> > +     (5250 - 5350 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR, DFS
> >
> >  country IN:
> >       (2402 - 2482 @ 40), (N/A, 20)
>
> Is this issue now settled?

Yes, I think that Michael Green agreed for this patch. Once he will
reply to make sure, we will be able to move on to a real patch.

Re: wireless-regdb: Add A band in IL - And general point regarding tx power limits in the dbase

[John W. Linville]

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 07:51:56AM -0700, Michael Green wrote:
> Here are my comments on the proposed patch...
> 
> country IL:
> > >       (2402 - 2482 @ 40), (N/A, 20)
> > > +     (5150 - 5250 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR
> > > +     (5250 - 5350 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR, DFS

> b) I think all entries in the dbase should be in dBm (not mW).
> dBm vs. mW are absolutely equivalent. No reason to retain "mW"
> unit from the source docs.  I think this was agreed by all before,
> but wanted to reiterate.

I'm not sure I see the fuss.  If anything, using the same units as
the source docs seems less error-prone to me.  Why not stick with
the source units and let the tool do the conversion rather than risk
introducing an error in the manual conversion?

John
-- 
John W. Linville		Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville@tuxdriver.com			might be all we have.  Be ready.

Re: wireless-regdb: Add A band in IL - And general point regarding tx power limits in the dbase

[Emmanuel Grumbach]

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 17:51, Michael Green <Michael.Green@atheros.com> wrote:
> Here are my comments on the proposed patch...
>
> country IL:
>> >       (2402 - 2482 @ 40), (N/A, 20)
>> > +     (5150 - 5250 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR
>> > +     (5250 - 5350 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR, DFS
>


> b) I think all entries in the dbase should be in dBm (not mW).   dBm vs. mW are absolutely equivalent. No reason to retain "mW" unit from the source docs.  I think this was agreed by all before, but wanted to reiterate.

Can you please help me translation from mW to db ?

Thanks

RE: wireless-regdb: Add A band in IL - And general point regarding tx power limits in the dbase

[Michael Green]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1039 bytes --]



Michael Green
Atheros Communications, Inc.
mgreen@atheros.com
Desk:   +1-781-400-1491
Mobile: +1-508-380-4921

-----Original Message-----
From: Emmanuel Grumbach [mailto:egrumbach@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 1:12 PM
To: Michael Green
Cc: John W. Linville; linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org; David Quan
Subject: Re: wireless-regdb: Add A band in IL - And general point regarding tx power limits in the dbase

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 17:51, Michael Green <Michael.Green@atheros.com> wrote:
> Here are my comments on the proposed patch...
>
> country IL:
>> >       (2402 - 2482 @ 40), (N/A, 20)
>> > +     (5150 - 5250 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR
>> > +     (5250 - 5350 @ 40). (N/A, 200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR, DFS
>


> b) I think all entries in the dbase should be in dBm (not mW).   dBm vs. mW are absolutely equivalent. No reason to retain "mW" unit from the source docs.  I think this was agreed by all before, but wanted to reiterate.

Can you please help me translation from mW to db ?

Thanks

[-- Attachment #2: dBm to mW.pdf --]
[-- Type: application/pdf, Size: 33631 bytes --]

Re: wireless-regdb: Add A band in IL - And general point regarding tx power limits in the dbase

[Holger Schurig]

> Can you please help me translation from mW to db ?

You cannot.

"dB" is without a reference. Is only a relative measurement. You can, however, 
convert "dB" into some factor.

What we were talking about was "dBm". Here we use a reference point of one 
milliwatt. Now you can convert dBm to milliwatt.

Another example of a "made absolute by using a reference" logarithmic scale is 
the gain of antennas. It's usually described in dBi or dBd. The first takes 
the (hypothetical) isotropical antenna, the second an dipol as reference.



For more info, search for "dBm" in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel

-- 
DH3HS, http://www.holgerschurig.de

Re: wireless-regdb: Add A band in IL - And general point regarding tx power limits in the dbase

[Johannes Berg]

On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 07:51 -0700, Michael Green wrote:

> b) I think all entries in the dbase should be in dBm (not mW).   dBm
> vs. mW are absolutely equivalent. No reason to retain "mW" unit from
> the source docs.  I think this was agreed by all before, but wanted to
> reiterate. 

Why? The tools automatically convert one into the other as required, so
if the source documents state mW it is _much_ easier to retain it for
future review. Hence I think it should be retained. As you say, it's
absolutely equivalent, so there's no reason _not_ to retain it as in the
source.

johannes

Re: wireless-regdb: Add A band in IL - And general point regarding tx power limits in the dbase

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Johannes Berg
<johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 07:51 -0700, Michael Green wrote:
>
>> b) I think all entries in the dbase should be in dBm (not mW).   dBm
>> vs. mW are absolutely equivalent. No reason to retain "mW" unit from
>> the source docs.  I think this was agreed by all before, but wanted to
>> reiterate.
>
> Why? The tools automatically convert one into the other as required, so
> if the source documents state mW it is _much_ easier to retain it for
> future review. Hence I think it should be retained. As you say, it's
> absolutely equivalent, so there's no reason _not_ to retain it as in the
> source.

I think the concern is not that but the other way around -- checking
db.txt against some internal docs which already have stuff in dBm. So
how about a simple solution: we write a script which parses db.txt and
gives you all entries in either format?

  Luis