On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 12:19:18PM +0200, Zefir Kurtisi wrote: > My claim is that in its current state the regdb does not exactly formalize the > limitations given by regulatory for a simple reason: it uses channel semantics > where it should only handle frequency ranges. Take the discussed rules for CA at > hand: while the linked document considers frequencies from 5150 to 5350, the > according rule for CA is defined as (5170 - 5250 @ 80). Why 5170 instead of 5150? > Because we know there is no channel defined below 5170 - but why do we need to > embed this information as a rule when it is already handled by SW? > > In the current regdb, both semantics are used, e.g. UA (5150-5350) vs. CA > (5170-5250) or ES (5470-5725) vs. FI (5490-5710)). I'm not surprised. I don't know that anyone has given it that much thought before. > This might sound like an irrelevant difference, but here is why it matters: the > above mentioned rules for ES and FI would give the same channel lists - as long as > we think in HT20 and HT40. But only ES gives access to 10 and 5MHz operation on > channel 144. Good example. > My bottom line is: regulatory rules must not contain channel semantics - this is > done by the SW. Rules must be a literal formalization of the country's regulatory, > which always uses frequency ranges within defined band edges. I'm generally in agreement. I'll try to pay closer attention to this in the future. > Sorry for this going off-topic. It has nothing to do with the changes proposed by > Wei, but is more about something to keep in mind when considering upcoming support > for narrow band channels at band edges. Except that it seems to have inspired Wei to change the patch to do exactly what you're arguing against ;-) Seth
