From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFB11C11F65 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 15:17:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAB72613EF for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 15:17:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235534AbhF3PUU (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jun 2021 11:20:20 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:37760 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235466AbhF3PUU (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jun 2021 11:20:20 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-x331.google.com (mail-wm1-x331.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::331]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08240C061756 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 08:17:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-x331.google.com with SMTP id a5-20020a7bc1c50000b02901e3bbe0939bso1912163wmj.0 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 08:17:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9Si4/3mbVmM5VJxy6bW+MVjJGaS3XheqtQW8xlZqafc=; b=lVdn7Lp4EpNU4LT33sKXscSBPErMV2XKU55z4P8urc0t8YbcEm9qsxXySDVbd6Jhpi /M0XOy/ykjXbK5sqj+hEPevj8mggSJdX9Src2vwXYC0si+/hlcUZ5JvsZgarDw+fqhMw dLI487lcNJnd0tqiDx4Wb1VxUR5NQ3qU0OiiVxxikSwkGNSrKfeKe988Mrombfgwra2I AeKP8syWoRt7lBYBZN7fnMckNW1F4gaoq2ZicmdTzSCZoQjwKQBakRaTf3Q535ycAbri yhdI6EWrwdprIjGMiKZy9dMMpl4toYpecYuMyeuFf7S7A1P3EHt0IOIflloO2rSSDQin FBiA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9Si4/3mbVmM5VJxy6bW+MVjJGaS3XheqtQW8xlZqafc=; b=WC/AdiU6TZy1EWvenadr4sCgPQz0c64cGCpYRIXNGn7TsyVj7cLJfQuw9eAtpTBPWW ZW4TWdQRKnlRK68S119oSVJ39/ykkh7TPttrIe8XHFR9GMMokXSCmPMZaTecOSsmCc4y W1TJ3nHwvq2q5Ncv3py4VJqhiadvtQ0iyBRvyfE8cmT1CiL6RN0hSBlDZM0Yh1bqoM79 2w47ux+UCxviAAVYiT/cF2DBaLANrBR8wIRMBMoBJyd5sSSKuhuSOR7KaQHbJ9NjcE/J PdtdgnEWNPVGuzJzczFDDsNCRwuGWP7goS4cmFX4Bs2VYteUlGKOLRvdP2mlzSjpR2VC 1dbw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533OYsXxGENyDc6gS2mfHJ25SIZmM3nWkyIrkPoXulMXi1+F8d8R CB/ukewWQlNmgFSVdEV6QiNR1jp+elRVXflYmlEZRam87j4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy5IqKZx5CNsWcNRVg9j8AjosPJZAWplzawZ9lT4NWTEEgeR3s8AzFquXlEESPCdVLndObvFtw1J8TrROjN0J0= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:4f56:: with SMTP id m22mr5372469wmq.16.1625066268617; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 08:17:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: b.K.il.h.u+tigbuh@gmail.com Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 17:17:37 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] wireless-regdb: recent FCC report and order allows 5850-5895 immediately To: Seth Forshee Cc: wireless-regdb , linux-wireless Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org > On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 5:47 PM Seth Forshee = wrote: > I think we concluded previously that both 5730-5850 and 5850-5895 should > have a max bandwidth of 160 MHz to permit use of 160 MHz across these > channels. > Yes. > We also discussed using NO-IR for 5850-5895. The regulations forbid > active scans, and PMTP-ONLY does not prevent them. NO-IR appears to be > the only option which conforms to this restriction, though that will > also block running an AP in this range. > So we would not be able to operate an OpenWrt or other Linux-based AP, while other vendors would be allowed to do this? How is this acceptable? How does this help in liberating the band? > I also read the max EIRP for clients as 30 dBm without any TPC > requirement. Did I overlook something which limits the EIRP to 27 dBm? > The 27 dBm EIRP is needed for 20 MHz operation due to spectral density requirements. Is my information correct that regdb has no notion of specifying a separate limit for spectral density? (If it did, we might be able to double the EIRP for 2.4GHz of 10MHz channels) I have summarized the reasoning in a comment of the original patch, but let me cite it here then (copied from the more recent link you have now given): > "(iii) For client devices operating under the control of an indoor access= point in the 5.850-5.895 GHz band, the maximum power spectral density must= not exceed 14 dBm e.i.r.p. in any 1-megahertz band, and the maximum e.i.r.= p. over the frequency band of operation must not exceed 30 dBm." > "the Commission limited indoor access point EIRP spectral density to 20 d= Bm/MHz with a maximum EIRP of 36 dBm over the bandwidth of operation (e.g.,= 33 dBm/20 MHz and 36 dBm/40 MHz)" > "To keep the potential for causing harmful interference low, the Commissi= on required client devices to operate under the control of an access point,= and limited client device's power spectral density and maximum transmit po= wer to 6 dB below the power permitted for the access point."