It's a problem with my mailer, I'm re-sending as an attachment. Answers inline: Feb 27, 2022, 14:26 by seth@xxxxxxxxxx: > On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 02:46:13PM +0100, roman.kunz@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> The Israeli Ministry of Communications has published an updated >> revision of the normative radio band allocation table on 2021-03-29. >> Notable change is the expansion of the range of allowed frequencies >> in the 5GHz band. >> >> Signed-off-by: Roman Kunzman <roman.kunz at tutanota.com> >> > > Thanks for the patch! Unfortunately there's a formatting problem, and it > won't apply as-is. Did you generate the patch with git-format-patch? If > so, it may be a problem with your mailer; in that case you could try > sending it as an attachment. > > I also have a couple of comments/questions, below. > >> --- >> db.txt | 9 +++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt >> index d45ec08..e107933 100644 >> --- a/db.txt >> +++ b/db.txt >> @@ -777,10 +777,19 @@ country IE: DFS-ETSI >> # 60 GHz band channels 1-4 (ETSI EN 302 567) >> (57000 - 66000 @ 2160), (40) >> >> +# IL: Wireless Telegraph Regulations (type approval) (2021) >> +# IL: published on 29 March 2021 in KOVETS HATAKANOT No. 9301. >> +# IL: https://www.gov.il/he/departments/legalInfo/telegraph_law >> +# IL: official document (pdf): https://rfa.justice.gov.il/SearchPredefinedApi/Documents/IdngyMn~ojdQSrkxuAqfZqiM8c1foi3TSZQhp7OMszo= >> +# IL: also available as unofficial word doc: https://www.nevo.co.il/Handlers/LawOpenDoc.ashx?id=199708 >> country IL: DFS-ETSI >> (2402 - 2482 @ 40), (20) >> (5150 - 5250 @ 80), (200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR, AUTO-BW >> (5250 - 5350 @ 80), (200 mW), NO-OUTDOOR, DFS, AUTO-BW >> + # Table B List of conditions, row 63, indoor short range device without TPC (ETSI EN 301 893) >> + (5470 - 5725 @ 80), (500 mW), NO-OUTDOOR, DFS, AUTO-BW, wmmrule=ETSI >> + # Table B List of conditions, row 68, wireless device using 802.11a/n/ac protocol >> + (5725 - 5875 @ 80), (200 mW), AUTO-BW >> > > Machine translation isn't working well for the document, so I'll have to > rely on your reading of it. Is there some limitation behind the 80 MHz > max bandwidth restriction for 5470-5725 MHz instead of 160 MHz? > I couldn't find any limitation on bandwidth in the regulations. The power density limits are way above the actual density for 80/160 so are irrelevant. I used the current existing reg-db value of 80MHz out of an abundance of caution. > We don't have AUTO-BW elsewhere between these ranges, and I'm trying to > remember why. Having it would obviously allow use of channel 144, and I > can't recall a reason for not having it. In some cases we've fudged the > boundaries where 5470-5725 is the more restrictive rule, and GB has an > exception carved out for 5725-5730. Neither of these is true for ETSI EN > 301 893 though. Maybe someone else will remember a reason for not having > AUTO-BW, but if not then it seems okay to me. > I don't know. It would be good to support channel 144 if possible.
