On Tue, 2012-12-04 at 10:54 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> As I implemented it, it should be checking if HT40 is used. If so then > >> it should be checking to see if the primary can use 40 MHz bandwidth > >> and then check to see if the secondary can use 20 MHz. The issue > >> should be that the code should likely is checking that the secondary > >> requires 40 MHz. It should only need to check if the secondary can use > >> 20 MHz if HT40 is desired. > > > > I don't think this is really what we should do ... In fact given the way > > we do it now with overlapping freqbands this would cause more problems > > than it would solve, I think. > > If we end up supporting overlapping frequency rules to be submitted. > Right now they don't overlap but point taken that we do support it and > there may possible issue of having them supported. 00 has overlapping rules today, also JP and KP > > What it really should check is that for each freqband, as much bandwidth > > is allowed as falls into that freqband. But given that we have > > overlapping freqbands, much bandwidth will actually fall into each one > > of them, so we must allow @40 again ... > > > > I'm drawing some pictures now :-) > > :) Lets be clear though that your points on overlapping frequency > rules are a separate architectural position to take than addressing > the issue at hand. This however is a good crux point for us to > evaluate this particular architectural consideration. Agree. johannes
