On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 12:58:58PM +0200, Bj?rn Mork wrote: > Jouni Malinen <jouni at qca.qualcomm.com> writes: > > On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 11:32:16AM +0300, Dmitry Ivanov wrote: > >> Currently, DFS region for Australia is not specified. This prevents starting AP with AU country code on DFS-affected channel in 5 GHz band with latest cfg80211 and hostapd because there is an explicit check for such condition. > >> > >> This patch specifies DFS region for Australia as DFS-ETSI. Alternatively, DFS-FCC can be used. > > > > I would have used DFS-FCC here unless you have a clear indication of > > DFS-ETSI being closer to requirements. In addition, there should be a > > Signed-off-by: tag in the commit log as described in the CONTRIBUTING > > file. > > From what I can gather from > http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2014L01253 > the details are hidden in the standard "AS/NZS 4268:2012". The scope > here: > http://shop.standards.co.nz/catalog/4268:2012%28AS|NZS%29/scope? > shows the existence of an appendix "B" titled > > "DYNAMIC FREQUENCY SELECTION (DFS) AND TRANSMIT POWER CONTROL (TPC) > REQUIREMENTS FOR RADIO LOCAL AREA NETWORK (RLAN) TRANSMITTERS > OPERATING IN 5250 TO 5350 MHz OR 5470 TO 5725 MHz" > > But I'm afraid you'll have to buy the standard to get the full details... > > Given hysterical raisins, and the general tendency to reference ETSI > standards and ERC decisions, I'd say that DFS-ETSI is more likely. Why > would they use FCC rules? > > But it should probably be kept aligned with the NZ entry, which > currently is DFS-FCC. Don't know the source of that, though. Could > very well be wrong... Ref the "EN 301 893 V1.7.1" alternative given > here: https://gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2015-go694 That's the most official-looking (free) source of information I could trun up as well. Dmitry, you site AS/NZS 4268 as your source - do you have access to this, and can you confirm that the requirements are closest to DFS-ETSI? It would be great if someone else with access to the document could ack this as well, since at first blush this appears to be in contradiction to Peter's email. I agree that it doesn't seem to make any sense for Australia and New Zealand to be different here. So if Australia is specified to use DFS-ETSI I think New Zealand should be changed to use it as well. Thanks, Seth
