On Fri, 2024-12-13 at 12:11 -0800, Jeff Johnson wrote: > On 12/13/2024 4:16 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Fri, 2024-12-13 at 17:41 +0530, Veerendranath Jakkam wrote: > > > Update 6 GHz regulatory info subfield mask and Indoor AFC standard power > > > type definitions to align with spec changes introduced in the Draft > > > P802.11Revme_D4.2, Figure 9-896 and Table E-13. > > > > > > > Huh. That seems like a change explicitly *designed* to break backward > > compatibility? Should we accept the old value from older APs or so? > > Otherwise we can't connect in some scenarios, I think? > > > > Or at least should we say here in the commit message or so why backward > > compatibility was broken, and that it was for other clients that didn't > > behave well or something but our code was already fine? > > > > Or am I completely confused about it? > > IEEE Drafts sometimes make non-backward-compatible changes. Umm. Me voicing confusion isn't a reason to state obvious things back to me as if that explained anything at all? In any case, they actually do that _very_ rarely (these days at least, that was different 20 years ago I'd say) without taking existing deployed things into account though. > This change brings > us up to date with the language in Draft 7.0 that was ratified and will be > published as IEEE 802.11be-2024. That's not what this claimed in the commit log. It also _cannot_ be correct since this stuff is in baseline as far as 802.11be is concerned, so it really cannot make incompatible changes that suddenly make all HE stations non-compliant. And now that you're forcing me to look into it, I see that of course it doesn't do that. This has nothing to do with Draft 802.11be in any version which only makes one simple change to Annex E to add 320 MHz. The commit log claims that REVme changes it, and while that might be true, looking at REVme (I don't have a redline version at hand right now) indicates that certainly it didn't make it backward incompatible, it now accepts multiple values and accepts the old values. > So if anything breaks, it is because it > hasn't been updated from the draft to the ratified standard. Clearly not. Suggest you go back to the drawing board with these changes. johannes
