On 09/08/2015 04:22 PM, Seth Forshee wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 03:59:38PM +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: >> On 08/13/2015 04:31 PM, Seth Forshee wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 03:29:55PM +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: >>>> Resoluci?n 127, 2011 - Reglamento Banda 2,4 GHz.: >>>> http://www.mincom.gob.cu/sites/default/files/marcoregulatorio/R%20127-11%20Reglamento%20banda%202,4%20GHz.pdf >>>> >>>> Cc: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee at canonical.com> >>>> Cc: linux-wireless at vger.kernel.org >>>> Cc: wireless-regdb at lists.infradead.org >>>> Signed-off-by: Xose Vazquez Perez <xose.vazquez at gmail.com> >>>> --- >>>> db.txt | 7 +++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt >>>> index 982db34..2edbf90 100644 >>>> --- a/db.txt >>>> +++ b/db.txt >>>> @@ -275,6 +275,13 @@ country CR: DFS-FCC >>>> (5490 - 5730 @ 20), (24), DFS >>>> (5735 - 5835 @ 20), (30) >>>> >>>> +# http://www.mincom.gob.cu/?q=marcoregulatorio >>>> +# - Redes Inform?ticas >>>> +# Resoluci?n 127, 2011 - Reglamento Banda 2,4 GHz. >>>> +country CU: DFS-FCC >>>> + (2400 - 2456 @ 40), (200 mW) >>>> + (2456 - 2483.5 @ 40), (200 mW) >>>> + >>> >>> Based on the Google translation of the document you linked to, I don't >>> see anything which would prevent merging these rules into one rule. Am I >>> missing something? >> >> from http://www.mincom.gob.cu/sites/default/files/marcoregulatorio/R%20127-11%20Reglamento%20banda%202,4%20GHz.pdf >> page 7: >> >> Art?culo 4: Disposiciones de car?cter t?cnico >> [..] >> 4.3.- No obstante lo anterior, los equipos que operen en las frecuencias entre 2456 y >> 2483,5 MHz pueden emplear valores de p.i.r.e superiores, cuando ello se justifique en >> beneficio de objetivos de inter?s nacional [...] >> 4.4.- Para estos casos es necesario obtener una autorizaci?n expresa de la Agencia >> [...] >> >> If you grant an authorization, for 2456-2483.5 pire can be increased. > > Okay, but for the purposes of this database that provision isn't going > to apply, and it seems you agree since you've listed both as having the > exact same power limit. So I'd still prefer that we make it a single > rule. OK. Done in v2. -thanks-
