From wzhong at google.com  Wed Jul  1 22:44:09 2015
From: wzhong at google.com (Wei Zhong)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 22:44:09 -0700
Subject: [wireless-regdb] wireless-regdb: update CA rules for 5600 - 5650 mHz
Message-ID: <CAHr=Vq=hJr6WUQgFXftMSG2zYgwtCXgoTaXBzRfM8-kQa2-K2w@mail.gmail.com>

commit 2fef4cad8a1bd9cbbf178e59a1b3ca672b057095
Author: Wei Zhong <wzhong at google.com>
Date:   Wed Jul 1 22:39:09 2015 -0700

    wireless-regdb: update CA rules for 5600 - 5650 mHz

    Related regulation:
    http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf10971.html#s6.2.3

    Frequency Bands 5470-5600 MHz and 5650-5725 MHz
    Until further notice, devices subject to this section [i.e. Wifi device
    supporting 5 GHz bands] shall not be capable of transmitting in the band
    5600-5650 MHz. This restriction is for the protection of Environment
    Canada?s weather radars operating in this band.

diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt
index 809cd3c..da0cfad 100644
--- a/db.txt
+++ b/db.txt
@@ -216,7 +216,8 @@ country CA: DFS-FCC
        (2402 - 2472 @ 40), (30)
        (5170 - 5250 @ 80), (17), AUTO-BW
        (5250 - 5330 @ 80), (24), DFS, AUTO-BW
-       (5490 - 5730 @ 160), (24), DFS
+       (5490 - 5600 @ 80), (24), DFS
+       (5650 - 5730 @ 40), (24), DFS
        (5735 - 5835 @ 80), (30)

 # Source:


From seth.forshee at canonical.com  Thu Jul  2 06:48:01 2015
From: seth.forshee at canonical.com (Seth Forshee)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 08:48:01 -0500
Subject: [wireless-regdb] wireless-regdb: update CA rules for 5600 -
	5650 mHz
In-Reply-To: <CAHr=Vq=hJr6WUQgFXftMSG2zYgwtCXgoTaXBzRfM8-kQa2-K2w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHr=Vq=hJr6WUQgFXftMSG2zYgwtCXgoTaXBzRfM8-kQa2-K2w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150702134801.GA40677@ubuntu-hedt>

On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:44:09PM -0700, Wei Zhong wrote:
> commit 2fef4cad8a1bd9cbbf178e59a1b3ca672b057095
> Author: Wei Zhong <wzhong at google.com>
> Date:   Wed Jul 1 22:39:09 2015 -0700
> 
>     wireless-regdb: update CA rules for 5600 - 5650 mHz
> 
>     Related regulation:
>     http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf10971.html#s6.2.3
> 
>     Frequency Bands 5470-5600 MHz and 5650-5725 MHz
>     Until further notice, devices subject to this section [i.e. Wifi device
>     supporting 5 GHz bands] shall not be capable of transmitting in the band
>     5600-5650 MHz. This restriction is for the protection of Environment
>     Canada?s weather radars operating in this band.

Thanks for the patch. There are a couple of issues though, plus a
question.

First, this project requires that you add a Signed-off-by tag to the
commit message to acknowledge your agreement to the Developer
Certificate of Origin. Please see the CONTRIBUTING file for more
information.

Second, the patch is not in the correct format. It looks like to me you
pasted the output from git-show, which resulted in mangled white space
and other issues. Please use git-format-patch to create the patch, then
send it using git-send-email or else send the patch as an attachment.

> diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt
> index 809cd3c..da0cfad 100644
> --- a/db.txt
> +++ b/db.txt
> @@ -216,7 +216,8 @@ country CA: DFS-FCC
>         (2402 - 2472 @ 40), (30)
>         (5170 - 5250 @ 80), (17), AUTO-BW
>         (5250 - 5330 @ 80), (24), DFS, AUTO-BW
> -       (5490 - 5730 @ 160), (24), DFS
> +       (5490 - 5600 @ 80), (24), DFS
> +       (5650 - 5730 @ 40), (24), DFS

Why isn't 80MHz channel bandwidth allowed in the 5650-5730 range?

Thanks,
Seth


From wzhong at google.com  Thu Jul  2 07:21:30 2015
From: wzhong at google.com (Wei Zhong)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 07:21:30 -0700
Subject: [wireless-regdb] wireless-regdb: update CA rules for 5600 -
	5650 mHz
In-Reply-To: <20150702134801.GA40677@ubuntu-hedt>
References: <CAHr=Vq=hJr6WUQgFXftMSG2zYgwtCXgoTaXBzRfM8-kQa2-K2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150702134801.GA40677@ubuntu-hedt>
Message-ID: <CAHr=Vqn8LzpsbAk=V2yC3Q0Xd5DHqfuSCW4G6vs1vZqBG-VSMw@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for the reply. I'll fix the format and re-submit.

On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 6:48 AM, Seth Forshee <seth.forshee at canonical.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:44:09PM -0700, Wei Zhong wrote:
>> commit 2fef4cad8a1bd9cbbf178e59a1b3ca672b057095
>> Author: Wei Zhong <wzhong at google.com>
>> Date:   Wed Jul 1 22:39:09 2015 -0700
>>
>>     wireless-regdb: update CA rules for 5600 - 5650 mHz
>>
>>     Related regulation:
>>     http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf10971.html#s6.2.3
>>
>>     Frequency Bands 5470-5600 MHz and 5650-5725 MHz
>>     Until further notice, devices subject to this section [i.e. Wifi device
>>     supporting 5 GHz bands] shall not be capable of transmitting in the band
>>     5600-5650 MHz. This restriction is for the protection of Environment
>>     Canada?s weather radars operating in this band.
>
> Thanks for the patch. There are a couple of issues though, plus a
> question.
>
> First, this project requires that you add a Signed-off-by tag to the
> commit message to acknowledge your agreement to the Developer
> Certificate of Origin. Please see the CONTRIBUTING file for more
> information.
>
> Second, the patch is not in the correct format. It looks like to me you
> pasted the output from git-show, which resulted in mangled white space
> and other issues. Please use git-format-patch to create the patch, then
> send it using git-send-email or else send the patch as an attachment.
>
>> diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt
>> index 809cd3c..da0cfad 100644
>> --- a/db.txt
>> +++ b/db.txt
>> @@ -216,7 +216,8 @@ country CA: DFS-FCC
>>         (2402 - 2472 @ 40), (30)
>>         (5170 - 5250 @ 80), (17), AUTO-BW
>>         (5250 - 5330 @ 80), (24), DFS, AUTO-BW
>> -       (5490 - 5730 @ 160), (24), DFS
>> +       (5490 - 5600 @ 80), (24), DFS
>> +       (5650 - 5730 @ 40), (24), DFS
>
> Why isn't 80MHz channel bandwidth allowed in the 5650-5730 range?

It could. But since the entire band is only 80 MHz, in practice, not a single
center_freq, channel 136 or140 for example, can utilities 80 MHz, right?

>
> Thanks,
> Seth


From seth.forshee at canonical.com  Thu Jul  2 07:31:44 2015
From: seth.forshee at canonical.com (Seth Forshee)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 09:31:44 -0500
Subject: [wireless-regdb] wireless-regdb: update CA rules for 5600 -
	5650 mHz
In-Reply-To: <CAHr=Vqn8LzpsbAk=V2yC3Q0Xd5DHqfuSCW4G6vs1vZqBG-VSMw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHr=Vq=hJr6WUQgFXftMSG2zYgwtCXgoTaXBzRfM8-kQa2-K2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150702134801.GA40677@ubuntu-hedt>
 <CAHr=Vqn8LzpsbAk=V2yC3Q0Xd5DHqfuSCW4G6vs1vZqBG-VSMw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150702143144.GB40677@ubuntu-hedt>

On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 07:21:30AM -0700, Wei Zhong wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. I'll fix the format and re-submit.

Thanks.

> > Why isn't 80MHz channel bandwidth allowed in the 5650-5730 range?
> 
> It could. But since the entire band is only 80 MHz, in practice, not a single
> center_freq, channel 136 or140 for example, can utilities 80 MHz, right?

I don't know, that's why I asked :-)

I actually haven't read up yet on how VHT80 is done in practice. I was
just curious why an 80 MHz channel wouldn't be possible when there's the
space for it.

Thanks,
Seth


From wzhong at google.com  Thu Jul  2 10:14:36 2015
From: wzhong at google.com (Wei Zhong)
Date: Thu,  2 Jul 2015 10:14:36 -0700
Subject: [wireless-regdb] [PATCH] wireless-regdb: update CA rules for 5600 -
	5650 mHz
Message-ID: <1435857276-19209-1-git-send-email-wzhong@google.com>

Related regulation:
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf10971.html#s6.2.3

Frequency Bands 5470-5600 MHz and 5650-5725 MHz
Until further notice, devices subject to this section [i.e. Wifi device
supporting 5 GHz bands] shall not be capable of transmitting in the band
5600-5650 MHz. This restriction is for the protection of Environment
Canada?s weather radars operating in this band.

Signed-off-by: Wei Zhong <wzhong at google.com>
---
 db.txt | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt
index 809cd3c..da0cfad 100644
--- a/db.txt
+++ b/db.txt
@@ -216,7 +216,8 @@ country CA: DFS-FCC
 	(2402 - 2472 @ 40), (30)
 	(5170 - 5250 @ 80), (17), AUTO-BW
 	(5250 - 5330 @ 80), (24), DFS, AUTO-BW
-	(5490 - 5730 @ 160), (24), DFS
+	(5490 - 5600 @ 80), (24), DFS
+	(5650 - 5730 @ 40), (24), DFS
 	(5735 - 5835 @ 80), (30)
 
 # Source:
-- 
2.4.3.573.g4eafbef



From seth.forshee at canonical.com  Thu Jul  2 11:25:36 2015
From: seth.forshee at canonical.com (Seth Forshee)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 13:25:36 -0500
Subject: [wireless-regdb] [PATCH] wireless-regdb: update CA rules for
	5600 - 5650 mHz
In-Reply-To: <1435857276-19209-1-git-send-email-wzhong@google.com>
References: <1435857276-19209-1-git-send-email-wzhong@google.com>
Message-ID: <20150702182536.GC40677@ubuntu-hedt>

On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 10:14:36AM -0700, Wei Zhong wrote:
> Related regulation:
> http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf10971.html#s6.2.3
> 
> Frequency Bands 5470-5600 MHz and 5650-5725 MHz
> Until further notice, devices subject to this section [i.e. Wifi device
> supporting 5 GHz bands] shall not be capable of transmitting in the band
> 5600-5650 MHz. This restriction is for the protection of Environment
> Canada?s weather radars operating in this band.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wei Zhong <wzhong at google.com>

That looks better, thanks. I'll leave some time for others to comment
before applying, but this looks okay to me.

Thanks,
Seth


From wzhong at google.com  Fri Jul  3 07:20:51 2015
From: wzhong at google.com (Wei Zhong)
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 07:20:51 -0700
Subject: [wireless-regdb] wireless-regdb: update CA rules for 5600 -
	5650 mHz
In-Reply-To: <55966D1B.1040603@neratec.com>
References: <CAHr=Vq=hJr6WUQgFXftMSG2zYgwtCXgoTaXBzRfM8-kQa2-K2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <55966D1B.1040603@neratec.com>
Message-ID: <CAHr=VqnpJ_+ovmB3gqm+X9WX98ZeVuO8VZ2cq6OFPcdjy8Rkgg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 4:08 AM, Zefir Kurtisi <zefir.kurtisi at neratec.com> wrote:
>
> On 07/02/2015 07:44 AM, Wei Zhong wrote:
> > commit 2fef4cad8a1bd9cbbf178e59a1b3ca672b057095
> > Author: Wei Zhong <wzhong at google.com>
> > Date:   Wed Jul 1 22:39:09 2015 -0700
> >
> >     wireless-regdb: update CA rules for 5600 - 5650 mHz
> >
> >     Related regulation:
> >     http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf10971.html#s6.2.3
> >
> >     Frequency Bands 5470-5600 MHz and 5650-5725 MHz
> >     Until further notice, devices subject to this section [i.e. Wifi device
> >     supporting 5 GHz bands] shall not be capable of transmitting in the band
> >     5600-5650 MHz. This restriction is for the protection of Environment
> >     Canada?s weather radars operating in this band.
> >
> > diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt
> > index 809cd3c..da0cfad 100644
> > --- a/db.txt
> > +++ b/db.txt
> > @@ -216,7 +216,8 @@ country CA: DFS-FCC
> >         (2402 - 2472 @ 40), (30)
> >         (5170 - 5250 @ 80), (17), AUTO-BW
> >         (5250 - 5330 @ 80), (24), DFS, AUTO-BW
> > -       (5490 - 5730 @ 160), (24), DFS
> > +       (5490 - 5600 @ 80), (24), DFS
> > +       (5650 - 5730 @ 40), (24), DFS
> >         (5735 - 5835 @ 80), (30)
> >
> >  # Source:
> > --
>
> I believe this could also be interpreted differently. If the change is only about
> removing the weather radar band (5600-5650), the change should be
>
>  -       (5490 - 5730 @ 160), (24), DFS
>  +       (5490 - 5570 @ 80), (24), DFS
>  +       (5570 - 5590 @ 20), (24), DFS
>  +       (5650 - 5730 @ 80), (24), DFS
>
> The second rule explicitly states that channel 116 remains available for HT20. If
> this level of strict correctness is not needed, rule 1 and 2 combined would be
>
>  -       (5490 - 5730 @ 160), (24), DFS
>  +       (5490 - 5590 @ 80), (24), DFS

I agree. 5590 is more strict than 5600.

>
>  +       (5650 - 5730 @ 80), (24), DFS

5690 MHz is not a channel can be used, is it still necessary to mark
this band as 80MHz while in practice it is not possible to fully
unitize the entire band?

>
>
> Cheers
> Zefir


From zefir.kurtisi at neratec.com  Fri Jul  3 04:08:11 2015
From: zefir.kurtisi at neratec.com (Zefir Kurtisi)
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 13:08:11 +0200
Subject: [wireless-regdb] wireless-regdb: update CA rules for 5600 -
	5650 mHz
In-Reply-To: <CAHr=Vq=hJr6WUQgFXftMSG2zYgwtCXgoTaXBzRfM8-kQa2-K2w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHr=Vq=hJr6WUQgFXftMSG2zYgwtCXgoTaXBzRfM8-kQa2-K2w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55966D1B.1040603@neratec.com>

On 07/02/2015 07:44 AM, Wei Zhong wrote:
> commit 2fef4cad8a1bd9cbbf178e59a1b3ca672b057095
> Author: Wei Zhong <wzhong at google.com>
> Date:   Wed Jul 1 22:39:09 2015 -0700
> 
>     wireless-regdb: update CA rules for 5600 - 5650 mHz
> 
>     Related regulation:
>     http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf10971.html#s6.2.3
> 
>     Frequency Bands 5470-5600 MHz and 5650-5725 MHz
>     Until further notice, devices subject to this section [i.e. Wifi device
>     supporting 5 GHz bands] shall not be capable of transmitting in the band
>     5600-5650 MHz. This restriction is for the protection of Environment
>     Canada?s weather radars operating in this band.
> 
> diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt
> index 809cd3c..da0cfad 100644
> --- a/db.txt
> +++ b/db.txt
> @@ -216,7 +216,8 @@ country CA: DFS-FCC
>         (2402 - 2472 @ 40), (30)
>         (5170 - 5250 @ 80), (17), AUTO-BW
>         (5250 - 5330 @ 80), (24), DFS, AUTO-BW
> -       (5490 - 5730 @ 160), (24), DFS
> +       (5490 - 5600 @ 80), (24), DFS
> +       (5650 - 5730 @ 40), (24), DFS
>         (5735 - 5835 @ 80), (30)
> 
>  # Source:
> --

I believe this could also be interpreted differently. If the change is only about
removing the weather radar band (5600-5650), the change should be

 -       (5490 - 5730 @ 160), (24), DFS
 +       (5490 - 5570 @ 80), (24), DFS
 +       (5570 - 5590 @ 20), (24), DFS
 +       (5650 - 5730 @ 80), (24), DFS

The second rule explicitly states that channel 116 remains available for HT20. If
this level of strict correctness is not needed, rule 1 and 2 combined would be

 -       (5490 - 5730 @ 160), (24), DFS
 +       (5490 - 5590 @ 80), (24), DFS
 +       (5650 - 5730 @ 80), (24), DFS


Cheers
Zefir


From zefir.kurtisi at neratec.com  Fri Jul  3 08:01:20 2015
From: zefir.kurtisi at neratec.com (Zefir Kurtisi)
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 17:01:20 +0200
Subject: [wireless-regdb] wireless-regdb: update CA rules for 5600 -
	5650 mHz
In-Reply-To: <CAHr=VqnpJ_+ovmB3gqm+X9WX98ZeVuO8VZ2cq6OFPcdjy8Rkgg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHr=Vq=hJr6WUQgFXftMSG2zYgwtCXgoTaXBzRfM8-kQa2-K2w@mail.gmail.com>	<55966D1B.1040603@neratec.com>
 <CAHr=VqnpJ_+ovmB3gqm+X9WX98ZeVuO8VZ2cq6OFPcdjy8Rkgg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5596A3C0.6020303@neratec.com>

On 07/03/2015 04:20 PM, Wei Zhong wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 4:08 AM, Zefir Kurtisi <zefir.kurtisi at neratec.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 07/02/2015 07:44 AM, Wei Zhong wrote:
>>> commit 2fef4cad8a1bd9cbbf178e59a1b3ca672b057095
>>> Author: Wei Zhong <wzhong at google.com>
>>> Date:   Wed Jul 1 22:39:09 2015 -0700
>>>
>>>     wireless-regdb: update CA rules for 5600 - 5650 mHz
>>>
>>>     Related regulation:
>>>     http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf10971.html#s6.2.3
>>>
>>>     Frequency Bands 5470-5600 MHz and 5650-5725 MHz
>>>     Until further notice, devices subject to this section [i.e. Wifi device
>>>     supporting 5 GHz bands] shall not be capable of transmitting in the band
>>>     5600-5650 MHz. This restriction is for the protection of Environment
>>>     Canada?s weather radars operating in this band.
>>>
>>> diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt
>>> index 809cd3c..da0cfad 100644
>>> --- a/db.txt
>>> +++ b/db.txt
>>> @@ -216,7 +216,8 @@ country CA: DFS-FCC
>>>         (2402 - 2472 @ 40), (30)
>>>         (5170 - 5250 @ 80), (17), AUTO-BW
>>>         (5250 - 5330 @ 80), (24), DFS, AUTO-BW
>>> -       (5490 - 5730 @ 160), (24), DFS
>>> +       (5490 - 5600 @ 80), (24), DFS
>>> +       (5650 - 5730 @ 40), (24), DFS
>>>         (5735 - 5835 @ 80), (30)
>>>
>>>  # Source:
>>> --
>>
>> I believe this could also be interpreted differently. If the change is only about
>> removing the weather radar band (5600-5650), the change should be
>>
>>  -       (5490 - 5730 @ 160), (24), DFS
>>  +       (5490 - 5570 @ 80), (24), DFS
>>  +       (5570 - 5590 @ 20), (24), DFS
>>  +       (5650 - 5730 @ 80), (24), DFS
>>
>> The second rule explicitly states that channel 116 remains available for HT20. If
>> this level of strict correctness is not needed, rule 1 and 2 combined would be
>>
>>  -       (5490 - 5730 @ 160), (24), DFS
>>  +       (5490 - 5590 @ 80), (24), DFS
> 
> I agree. 5590 is more strict than 5600.
> 
>>
>>  +       (5650 - 5730 @ 80), (24), DFS
> 
> 5690 MHz is not a channel can be used, is it still necessary to mark
> this band as 80MHz while in practice it is not possible to fully
> unitize the entire band?
> 

I must be missing something here, where does the restriction for 5690 come from?
The document handles the band 5650-5725 as available, I don't see any further
restrictions for 5690.


>From your other post:
>>     >
>>     >  -       (5490 - 5730 @ 160), (24), DFS
>>     >  +       (5490 - 5590 @ 80), (24), DFS
>> 
>>     I agree. 5590 is more strict than 5600.
>> 
>>  
>> On a second thought,  5590 implies channel 116 can't have 40MHz. I think that is
>> still allowed per regulation.
>> 
>> 

No, channel 116 is not usable for HT40 if weather radar channels are disabled,
since it can only be combined with channel 120 and that one partially falls into
the restricted range.

I found the FCC channel plans (which CA conforms to) in [1] very helpful when
checking the restrictions.


[1] https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=lp4w3WTVG9PReWNFG0ckTg%3D%3D




From seth.forshee at canonical.com  Mon Jul  6 06:27:07 2015
From: seth.forshee at canonical.com (Seth Forshee)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 08:27:07 -0500
Subject: [wireless-regdb] wireless-regdb: update CA rules for 5600 -
	5650 mHz
In-Reply-To: <5596A3C0.6020303@neratec.com>
References: <CAHr=Vq=hJr6WUQgFXftMSG2zYgwtCXgoTaXBzRfM8-kQa2-K2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <55966D1B.1040603@neratec.com>
 <CAHr=VqnpJ_+ovmB3gqm+X9WX98ZeVuO8VZ2cq6OFPcdjy8Rkgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5596A3C0.6020303@neratec.com>
Message-ID: <20150706132707.GA22962@ubuntu-hedt>

On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 05:01:20PM +0200, Zefir Kurtisi wrote:
> On 07/03/2015 04:20 PM, Wei Zhong wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 4:08 AM, Zefir Kurtisi <zefir.kurtisi at neratec.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 07/02/2015 07:44 AM, Wei Zhong wrote:
> >>> commit 2fef4cad8a1bd9cbbf178e59a1b3ca672b057095
> >>> Author: Wei Zhong <wzhong at google.com>
> >>> Date:   Wed Jul 1 22:39:09 2015 -0700
> >>>
> >>>     wireless-regdb: update CA rules for 5600 - 5650 mHz
> >>>
> >>>     Related regulation:
> >>>     http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf10971.html#s6.2.3
> >>>
> >>>     Frequency Bands 5470-5600 MHz and 5650-5725 MHz
> >>>     Until further notice, devices subject to this section [i.e. Wifi device
> >>>     supporting 5 GHz bands] shall not be capable of transmitting in the band
> >>>     5600-5650 MHz. This restriction is for the protection of Environment
> >>>     Canada?s weather radars operating in this band.
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt
> >>> index 809cd3c..da0cfad 100644
> >>> --- a/db.txt
> >>> +++ b/db.txt
> >>> @@ -216,7 +216,8 @@ country CA: DFS-FCC
> >>>         (2402 - 2472 @ 40), (30)
> >>>         (5170 - 5250 @ 80), (17), AUTO-BW
> >>>         (5250 - 5330 @ 80), (24), DFS, AUTO-BW
> >>> -       (5490 - 5730 @ 160), (24), DFS
> >>> +       (5490 - 5600 @ 80), (24), DFS
> >>> +       (5650 - 5730 @ 40), (24), DFS
> >>>         (5735 - 5835 @ 80), (30)
> >>>
> >>>  # Source:
> >>> --
> >>
> >> I believe this could also be interpreted differently. If the change is only about
> >> removing the weather radar band (5600-5650), the change should be
> >>
> >>  -       (5490 - 5730 @ 160), (24), DFS
> >>  +       (5490 - 5570 @ 80), (24), DFS
> >>  +       (5570 - 5590 @ 20), (24), DFS
> >>  +       (5650 - 5730 @ 80), (24), DFS
> >>
> >> The second rule explicitly states that channel 116 remains available for HT20. If
> >> this level of strict correctness is not needed, rule 1 and 2 combined would be
> >>
> >>  -       (5490 - 5730 @ 160), (24), DFS
> >>  +       (5490 - 5590 @ 80), (24), DFS
> > 
> > I agree. 5590 is more strict than 5600.
> > 
> >>
> >>  +       (5650 - 5730 @ 80), (24), DFS
> > 
> > 5690 MHz is not a channel can be used, is it still necessary to mark
> > this band as 80MHz while in practice it is not possible to fully
> > unitize the entire band?
> > 
> 
> I must be missing something here, where does the restriction for 5690 come from?
> The document handles the band 5650-5725 as available, I don't see any further
> restrictions for 5690.

I've only looked briefly at the relevant documents, but I also am not
seeing where this restriction comes from. The regulatory document linked
to in the patch description doesn't seem to restrict it, nor does
anything I see in the discussion of VHT80 center frequencies in IEEE
802.11 (in fact channel 138 is explicitly listed as a possible VHT80
center frequency index in some of the tables).

> From your other post:
> >>     >
> >>     >  -       (5490 - 5730 @ 160), (24), DFS
> >>     >  +       (5490 - 5590 @ 80), (24), DFS
> >> 
> >>     I agree. 5590 is more strict than 5600.
> >> 
> >>  
> >> On a second thought,  5590 implies channel 116 can't have 40MHz. I think that is
> >> still allowed per regulation.
> >> 
> >> 
> 
> No, channel 116 is not usable for HT40 if weather radar channels are disabled,
> since it can only be combined with channel 120 and that one partially falls into
> the restricted range.

It's not necessary to restrict the band down to 5590 or break out the
rule for channel 116 separately, the software is smart enough to work
out what's allowed based on the original rule Wei supplied for 5490-5600
MHz. In fact that rule exactly matches what we used to have in db.txt
for the US prior to the TDWR restrictions being lifted.

Seth


From zefir.kurtisi at neratec.com  Mon Jul  6 07:40:56 2015
From: zefir.kurtisi at neratec.com (Zefir Kurtisi)
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 16:40:56 +0200
Subject: [wireless-regdb] wireless-regdb: update CA rules for 5600 -
	5650 mHz
In-Reply-To: <20150706132707.GA22962@ubuntu-hedt>
References: <CAHr=Vq=hJr6WUQgFXftMSG2zYgwtCXgoTaXBzRfM8-kQa2-K2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <55966D1B.1040603@neratec.com>
 <CAHr=VqnpJ_+ovmB3gqm+X9WX98ZeVuO8VZ2cq6OFPcdjy8Rkgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5596A3C0.6020303@neratec.com> <20150706132707.GA22962@ubuntu-hedt>
Message-ID: <559A9378.7000006@neratec.com>

On 07/06/2015 03:27 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 05:01:20PM +0200, Zefir Kurtisi wrote:
>> On 07/03/2015 04:20 PM, Wei Zhong wrote:
>> [...]
>> From your other post:
>>>>     >
>>>>     >  -       (5490 - 5730 @ 160), (24), DFS
>>>>     >  +       (5490 - 5590 @ 80), (24), DFS
>>>>
>>>>     I agree. 5590 is more strict than 5600.
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>> On a second thought,  5590 implies channel 116 can't have 40MHz. I think that is
>>>> still allowed per regulation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> No, channel 116 is not usable for HT40 if weather radar channels are disabled,
>> since it can only be combined with channel 120 and that one partially falls into
>> the restricted range.
> 
> It's not necessary to restrict the band down to 5590 or break out the
> rule for channel 116 separately, the software is smart enough to work
> out what's allowed based on the original rule Wei supplied for 5490-5600
> MHz. In fact that rule exactly matches what we used to have in db.txt
> for the US prior to the TDWR restrictions being lifted.
> 

Yes, the SW is smart and sane enough to extract the limitations even if they are
defined less restrictive than required. Which raises the general question of what
needs to be defined as rule and what can be relied on to be handled correctly by
the SW.

Example: why do we need to bother about the max-bw parameter for a rule at all? We
know there is no 160MHz channel within 5490 and 5600, as does the SW. If we wrote
(5490 - 5600 @ 160) instead of (5490 - 5600 @ 80), nothing would change.

To me it sounds not fully consistent to explicitly limit max-bw while relying on
SW to sanitize frequency ranges. Not that it really matters in practice, but it
has a potential to simplify the rules (i.e. provide max-bw parameter only if the
according country defines restrictions and leave SW to handle it otherwise).


Cheers,
Zefir


From wzhong at google.com  Mon Jul  6 10:09:53 2015
From: wzhong at google.com (Wei Zhong)
Date: Mon,  6 Jul 2015 10:09:53 -0700
Subject: [wireless-regdb] [PATCH] wireless-regdb: update CA rules for 5600 -
	5650 mHz
Message-ID: <1436202593-12701-1-git-send-email-wzhong@google.com>

Related regulation:
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf10971.html#s6.2.3

Frequency Bands 5470-5600 MHz and 5650-5725 MHz
Until further notice, devices subject to this section [i.e. Wifi device
supporting 5 GHz bands] shall not be capable of transmitting in the band
5600-5650 MHz. This restriction is for the protection of Environment
Canada?s weather radars operating in this band.

Signed-off-by: Wei Zhong <wzhong at google.com>
---
 db.txt | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt
index 809cd3c..74bcf6b 100644
--- a/db.txt
+++ b/db.txt
@@ -216,7 +216,8 @@ country CA: DFS-FCC
 	(2402 - 2472 @ 40), (30)
 	(5170 - 5250 @ 80), (17), AUTO-BW
 	(5250 - 5330 @ 80), (24), DFS, AUTO-BW
-	(5490 - 5730 @ 160), (24), DFS
+	(5490 - 5590 @ 80), (24), DFS
+	(5650 - 5730 @ 80), (24), DFS
 	(5735 - 5835 @ 80), (30)
 
 # Source:
-- 
2.4.3.573.g4eafbef



From wzhong at google.com  Mon Jul  6 10:13:53 2015
From: wzhong at google.com (Wei Zhong)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 10:13:53 -0700
Subject: [wireless-regdb] wireless-regdb: update CA rules for 5600 -
	5650 mHz
In-Reply-To: <559A9378.7000006@neratec.com>
References: <CAHr=Vq=hJr6WUQgFXftMSG2zYgwtCXgoTaXBzRfM8-kQa2-K2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <55966D1B.1040603@neratec.com>
 <CAHr=VqnpJ_+ovmB3gqm+X9WX98ZeVuO8VZ2cq6OFPcdjy8Rkgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5596A3C0.6020303@neratec.com> <20150706132707.GA22962@ubuntu-hedt>
 <559A9378.7000006@neratec.com>
Message-ID: <CAHr=VqkH=Tsi1mbRRgnhOT6UZSEfpNZXUXHA9+9B6M+qJb0upA@mail.gmail.com>

I have applied more restrictive rule for (5490-5590) and allowed 80Mhz
for (5650 - 5730).

The patch has been uploaded in another thread.
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/wireless-regdb/2015-July/000858.html

Thanks.

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Zefir Kurtisi <zefir.kurtisi at neratec.com> wrote:
> On 07/06/2015 03:27 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 05:01:20PM +0200, Zefir Kurtisi wrote:
>>> On 07/03/2015 04:20 PM, Wei Zhong wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> From your other post:
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     >  -       (5490 - 5730 @ 160), (24), DFS
>>>>>     >  +       (5490 - 5590 @ 80), (24), DFS
>>>>>
>>>>>     I agree. 5590 is more strict than 5600.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On a second thought,  5590 implies channel 116 can't have 40MHz. I think that is
>>>>> still allowed per regulation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> No, channel 116 is not usable for HT40 if weather radar channels are disabled,
>>> since it can only be combined with channel 120 and that one partially falls into
>>> the restricted range.
>>
>> It's not necessary to restrict the band down to 5590 or break out the
>> rule for channel 116 separately, the software is smart enough to work
>> out what's allowed based on the original rule Wei supplied for 5490-5600
>> MHz. In fact that rule exactly matches what we used to have in db.txt
>> for the US prior to the TDWR restrictions being lifted.
>>
>
> Yes, the SW is smart and sane enough to extract the limitations even if they are
> defined less restrictive than required. Which raises the general question of what
> needs to be defined as rule and what can be relied on to be handled correctly by
> the SW.
>
> Example: why do we need to bother about the max-bw parameter for a rule at all? We
> know there is no 160MHz channel within 5490 and 5600, as does the SW. If we wrote
> (5490 - 5600 @ 160) instead of (5490 - 5600 @ 80), nothing would change.
>
> To me it sounds not fully consistent to explicitly limit max-bw while relying on
> SW to sanitize frequency ranges. Not that it really matters in practice, but it
> has a potential to simplify the rules (i.e. provide max-bw parameter only if the
> according country defines restrictions and leave SW to handle it otherwise).
>
>
> Cheers,
> Zefir


From wens at csie.org  Tue Jul  7 01:07:15 2015
From: wens at csie.org (Chen-Yu Tsai)
Date: Tue,  7 Jul 2015 16:07:15 +0800
Subject: [wireless-regdb] [PATCH] wireless-regdb: Update regulatory rules
	for Taiwan (TW)
Message-ID: <1436256435-25048-1-git-send-email-wens@csie.org>

Taiwan's Ministry of Transportation and Communications revised its
frequency allocation rules [1], specifically opening up 5.15 GHz ~
5.25 GHz and 5.6 GHz ~ 5.65 GHz for U-NII applications, as well as
explicitly mentioning U-NII applications and DFS requirements for
the related frequency ranges.

LP0002 [2], the technical standard for low power radio devices, hasn't
been updated,though work is under way. The NCC, Taiwan's equivalent of
the US FCC, has explicitly [3][4] allowed certification under the newest
FCC Part 15E limitations, though unwanted emissions must still conform
to LP0002 sections 2.7 ~ 2.8:

  - 5150 MHz ~ 5250 MHz is not restricted to indoor usage.

  - 5250 MHz ~ 5350 MHz and 5470 MHz ~ 5725 MHz devices should have DFS
    capabilities, and conform to latest FCC radar standards.

  - 5250 MHz ~ 5350 MHz without DFS capabilities are limited to indoor
    usage, under current LP0002 restrictions.

In addition, large channels across multiple U-NII bands are allowed
under the same rules as FCC KDB 644545 [5].

This patch updates the regulatory rules for Taiwan (TW) to reflect the
changes noted above, and corrects transmit power limits for 5470 MHz ~
5725 MHz. In addition, the format of the rules has been modified:

  - List band boundaries, instead of channel boundaries, and add AUTO-BW
    for adjacent bands.

  - List maximum transmit power using mW instead of dBm. This is easier
    to find from the related documents.

[1] http://www.motc.gov.tw/websitedowndoc?file=post/201411171137330.doc&filedisplay=Table+of+radio+frequency+allocation.doc
[2] http://www.ncc.gov.tw/english/show_file.aspx?table_name=news&file_sn=681
[3] http://www.rheintech.com/our-blog/item/585-taiwan-ncc-opens-5150-5250-mhz-for-wireless-devices
[4] Proposal #10312260 (p.6, Chinese),
    http://www.etc.org.tw/_library/K00/%E9%9B%BB%E4%BF%A1%E7%B5%82%E7%AB%AF%E8%A8%AD%E5%82%99%E5%AF%A9%E9%A9%97/1031223_nccqa56.pdf
[5] Proposal #10202205 (p.3, Chinese),
    http://www.etc.org.tw/_library/K00/%E4%BD%8E%E5%8A%9F%E7%8E%87%E8%A8%AD%E5%82%99%E5%AF%A9%E9%A9%97/1020221_nccqa50.pdf

Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens at csie.org>
---

Hi everyone,

First of all, I am _not_ a regulatory or wireless expert, nor is my
field of work related, unless you count deploying access points as
related.

Last week I bought and deployed a new "Tri-band" 802.11ac wireless
router, and it was using channels 36~44, which previously was not
available in Taiwan. After asking around, a friend at the vendor
said that Taiwan recently opened up that part of the spectrum.

Unfortunately, [4][5] are Q&As transcripts with the regulatory body.
I cound only find them in Chinese. Suffice to say, Taiwan's NCC
follows the FCC closely whenever possible when it comes to wireless
stuff.

As such, I also looked at the US rules. It seems they are using
"peak power spectral density" instead of "peak power output".
I believe this is wrong. My crude understanding is the former
is the amount of power in a single chunk of the complete channel,
while the latter is the actual power put out by the transmitter.
The former would be used to enforce a more uniform power distribution
over the wireless channel, while the later actually limits transmission
power, and thus range.


Regards
ChenYu

---
 db.txt | 20 ++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt
index 809cd3c..f1c110d 100644
--- a/db.txt
+++ b/db.txt
@@ -1117,12 +1117,20 @@ country TT: DFS-FCC
 	(5490 - 5730 @ 160), (24), DFS
 	(5735 - 5835 @ 80), (30)
 
-country TW: DFS-JP
-	(2402 - 2472 @ 40), (30)
-	(5270 - 5330 @ 40), (17), DFS
-	(5490 - 5590 @ 80), (30), DFS
-	(5650 - 5710 @ 40), (30), DFS
-	(5735 - 5835 @ 80), (30)
+# Source:
+# Table of Frequency Allocations of Republic of China (Taiwan) / Nov 2014:
+#   http://www.motc.gov.tw/websitedowndoc?file=post/201411171137330.doc& \
+#	filedisplay=Table+of+radio+frequency+allocation.doc
+# LP0002 / 28 Jun 2011:
+#   http://www.ncc.gov.tw/english/show_file.aspx?table_name=news&file_sn=681
+#   (section 3.10.1, 4.7)
+#
+country TW: DFS-FCC
+	(2400 - 2483.5 @ 40), (1000 mW)
+	(5150 - 5250 @ 80), (1000 mW), AUTO-BW
+	(5250 - 5350 @ 80), (250 mW), DFS, AUTO-BW
+	(5470 - 5725 @ 160), (250 mW), DFS, AUTO-BW
+	(5725 - 5850 @ 80), (1000 mW), AUTO-BW
  
 country TZ:
 	(2402 - 2482 @ 40), (20)
-- 
2.1.4



From seth.forshee at canonical.com  Tue Jul  7 13:11:26 2015
From: seth.forshee at canonical.com (Seth Forshee)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:11:26 -0500
Subject: [wireless-regdb] wireless-regdb: update CA rules for 5600 -
	5650 mHz
In-Reply-To: <559A9378.7000006@neratec.com>
References: <CAHr=Vq=hJr6WUQgFXftMSG2zYgwtCXgoTaXBzRfM8-kQa2-K2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <55966D1B.1040603@neratec.com>
 <CAHr=VqnpJ_+ovmB3gqm+X9WX98ZeVuO8VZ2cq6OFPcdjy8Rkgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5596A3C0.6020303@neratec.com> <20150706132707.GA22962@ubuntu-hedt>
 <559A9378.7000006@neratec.com>
Message-ID: <20150707201126.GB369@ubuntu-xps13>

On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 04:40:56PM +0200, Zefir Kurtisi wrote:
> On 07/06/2015 03:27 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 05:01:20PM +0200, Zefir Kurtisi wrote:
> >> On 07/03/2015 04:20 PM, Wei Zhong wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> From your other post:
> >>>>     >
> >>>>     >  -       (5490 - 5730 @ 160), (24), DFS
> >>>>     >  +       (5490 - 5590 @ 80), (24), DFS
> >>>>
> >>>>     I agree. 5590 is more strict than 5600.
> >>>>
> >>>>  
> >>>> On a second thought,  5590 implies channel 116 can't have 40MHz. I think that is
> >>>> still allowed per regulation.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >> No, channel 116 is not usable for HT40 if weather radar channels are disabled,
> >> since it can only be combined with channel 120 and that one partially falls into
> >> the restricted range.
> > 
> > It's not necessary to restrict the band down to 5590 or break out the
> > rule for channel 116 separately, the software is smart enough to work
> > out what's allowed based on the original rule Wei supplied for 5490-5600
> > MHz. In fact that rule exactly matches what we used to have in db.txt
> > for the US prior to the TDWR restrictions being lifted.
> > 
> 
> Yes, the SW is smart and sane enough to extract the limitations even if they are
> defined less restrictive than required. Which raises the general question of what
> needs to be defined as rule and what can be relied on to be handled correctly by
> the SW.
> 
> Example: why do we need to bother about the max-bw parameter for a rule at all? We
> know there is no 160MHz channel within 5490 and 5600, as does the SW. If we wrote
> (5490 - 5600 @ 160) instead of (5490 - 5600 @ 80), nothing would change.
> 
> To me it sounds not fully consistent to explicitly limit max-bw while relying on
> SW to sanitize frequency ranges. Not that it really matters in practice, but it
> has a potential to simplify the rules (i.e. provide max-bw parameter only if the
> according country defines restrictions and leave SW to handle it otherwise).

The database is just about capturing the rules of the various regulatory
bodies. I don't know off the top of my head if there are any cases today
where the maximum allowed badwidth in a given range is less than the
maximum possible bandwidth in that range, but it certainly doesn't seem
impossible. So I wouldn't call it inconsistent.

We aren't expecting the kernel to "sanitize" the frequency ranges
either. It doesn't rely on the regdb to tell it which frequencies are
legitimate.

Seth


From seth.forshee at canonical.com  Tue Jul  7 13:54:18 2015
From: seth.forshee at canonical.com (Seth Forshee)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:54:18 -0500
Subject: [wireless-regdb] [PATCH] wireless-regdb: Update regulatory
	rules for Taiwan (TW)
In-Reply-To: <1436256435-25048-1-git-send-email-wens@csie.org>
References: <1436256435-25048-1-git-send-email-wens@csie.org>
Message-ID: <20150707205418.GC369@ubuntu-xps13>

On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 04:07:15PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> Taiwan's Ministry of Transportation and Communications revised its
> frequency allocation rules [1], specifically opening up 5.15 GHz ~
> 5.25 GHz and 5.6 GHz ~ 5.65 GHz for U-NII applications, as well as
> explicitly mentioning U-NII applications and DFS requirements for
> the related frequency ranges.
> 
> LP0002 [2], the technical standard for low power radio devices, hasn't
> been updated,though work is under way. The NCC, Taiwan's equivalent of
> the US FCC, has explicitly [3][4] allowed certification under the newest
> FCC Part 15E limitations, though unwanted emissions must still conform
> to LP0002 sections 2.7 ~ 2.8:
> 
>   - 5150 MHz ~ 5250 MHz is not restricted to indoor usage.
> 
>   - 5250 MHz ~ 5350 MHz and 5470 MHz ~ 5725 MHz devices should have DFS
>     capabilities, and conform to latest FCC radar standards.
> 
>   - 5250 MHz ~ 5350 MHz without DFS capabilities are limited to indoor
>     usage, under current LP0002 restrictions.
> 
> In addition, large channels across multiple U-NII bands are allowed
> under the same rules as FCC KDB 644545 [5].
> 
> This patch updates the regulatory rules for Taiwan (TW) to reflect the
> changes noted above, and corrects transmit power limits for 5470 MHz ~
> 5725 MHz. In addition, the format of the rules has been modified:
> 
>   - List band boundaries, instead of channel boundaries, and add AUTO-BW
>     for adjacent bands.
> 
>   - List maximum transmit power using mW instead of dBm. This is easier
>     to find from the related documents.
> 
> [1] http://www.motc.gov.tw/websitedowndoc?file=post/201411171137330.doc&filedisplay=Table+of+radio+frequency+allocation.doc
> [2] http://www.ncc.gov.tw/english/show_file.aspx?table_name=news&file_sn=681
> [3] http://www.rheintech.com/our-blog/item/585-taiwan-ncc-opens-5150-5250-mhz-for-wireless-devices
> [4] Proposal #10312260 (p.6, Chinese),
>     http://www.etc.org.tw/_library/K00/%E9%9B%BB%E4%BF%A1%E7%B5%82%E7%AB%AF%E8%A8%AD%E5%82%99%E5%AF%A9%E9%A9%97/1031223_nccqa56.pdf
> [5] Proposal #10202205 (p.3, Chinese),
>     http://www.etc.org.tw/_library/K00/%E4%BD%8E%E5%8A%9F%E7%8E%87%E8%A8%AD%E5%82%99%E5%AF%A9%E9%A9%97/1020221_nccqa50.pdf
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens at csie.org>
> ---
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> First of all, I am _not_ a regulatory or wireless expert, nor is my
> field of work related, unless you count deploying access points as
> related.
> 
> Last week I bought and deployed a new "Tri-band" 802.11ac wireless
> router, and it was using channels 36~44, which previously was not
> available in Taiwan. After asking around, a friend at the vendor
> said that Taiwan recently opened up that part of the spectrum.
> 
> Unfortunately, [4][5] are Q&As transcripts with the regulatory body.
> I cound only find them in Chinese. Suffice to say, Taiwan's NCC
> follows the FCC closely whenever possible when it comes to wireless
> stuff.
> 
> As such, I also looked at the US rules. It seems they are using
> "peak power spectral density" instead of "peak power output".
> I believe this is wrong. My crude understanding is the former
> is the amount of power in a single chunk of the complete channel,
> while the latter is the actual power put out by the transmitter.
> The former would be used to enforce a more uniform power distribution
> over the wireless channel, while the later actually limits transmission
> power, and thus range.

I certainly don't qualify as a regulatory expert either. But the rules
you're proposing to change came from Qualcomm Atheros, and I do have
considerable confidence in their regualtory expertise. Therefore I'd
want an ack from QCA before I'd consider applying this patch.

I would however consider an update for 5.15-5.25 GHz and 5.6-5.65 GHz
provided that there's official documentation to substantiate the change.
I unfortunately cannot read Chinese, so I would need some assistance to
confirm the documentation.

Thanks,
Seth


From wens at csie.org  Tue Jul  7 19:51:31 2015
From: wens at csie.org (Chen-Yu Tsai)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 10:51:31 +0800
Subject: [wireless-regdb] [PATCH] wireless-regdb: Update regulatory
	rules for Taiwan (TW)
In-Reply-To: <20150707205418.GC369@ubuntu-xps13>
References: <1436256435-25048-1-git-send-email-wens@csie.org>
 <20150707205418.GC369@ubuntu-xps13>
Message-ID: <CAGb2v67gw=Z32fLGzKP2S0OGf-fQPhCLEZdt4v5yZuRAvSis7g@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Seth Forshee <seth.forshee at canonical.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 04:07:15PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
>> Taiwan's Ministry of Transportation and Communications revised its
>> frequency allocation rules [1], specifically opening up 5.15 GHz ~
>> 5.25 GHz and 5.6 GHz ~ 5.65 GHz for U-NII applications, as well as
>> explicitly mentioning U-NII applications and DFS requirements for
>> the related frequency ranges.
>>
>> LP0002 [2], the technical standard for low power radio devices, hasn't
>> been updated,though work is under way. The NCC, Taiwan's equivalent of
>> the US FCC, has explicitly [3][4] allowed certification under the newest
>> FCC Part 15E limitations, though unwanted emissions must still conform
>> to LP0002 sections 2.7 ~ 2.8:
>>
>>   - 5150 MHz ~ 5250 MHz is not restricted to indoor usage.
>>
>>   - 5250 MHz ~ 5350 MHz and 5470 MHz ~ 5725 MHz devices should have DFS
>>     capabilities, and conform to latest FCC radar standards.
>>
>>   - 5250 MHz ~ 5350 MHz without DFS capabilities are limited to indoor
>>     usage, under current LP0002 restrictions.
>>
>> In addition, large channels across multiple U-NII bands are allowed
>> under the same rules as FCC KDB 644545 [5].
>>
>> This patch updates the regulatory rules for Taiwan (TW) to reflect the
>> changes noted above, and corrects transmit power limits for 5470 MHz ~
>> 5725 MHz. In addition, the format of the rules has been modified:
>>
>>   - List band boundaries, instead of channel boundaries, and add AUTO-BW
>>     for adjacent bands.
>>
>>   - List maximum transmit power using mW instead of dBm. This is easier
>>     to find from the related documents.
>>
>> [1] http://www.motc.gov.tw/websitedowndoc?file=post/201411171137330.doc&filedisplay=Table+of+radio+frequency+allocation.doc
>> [2] http://www.ncc.gov.tw/english/show_file.aspx?table_name=news&file_sn=681
>> [3] http://www.rheintech.com/our-blog/item/585-taiwan-ncc-opens-5150-5250-mhz-for-wireless-devices
>> [4] Proposal #10312260 (p.6, Chinese),
>>     http://www.etc.org.tw/_library/K00/%E9%9B%BB%E4%BF%A1%E7%B5%82%E7%AB%AF%E8%A8%AD%E5%82%99%E5%AF%A9%E9%A9%97/1031223_nccqa56.pdf
>> [5] Proposal #10202205 (p.3, Chinese),
>>     http://www.etc.org.tw/_library/K00/%E4%BD%8E%E5%8A%9F%E7%8E%87%E8%A8%AD%E5%82%99%E5%AF%A9%E9%A9%97/1020221_nccqa50.pdf
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens at csie.org>
>> ---
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> First of all, I am _not_ a regulatory or wireless expert, nor is my
>> field of work related, unless you count deploying access points as
>> related.
>>
>> Last week I bought and deployed a new "Tri-band" 802.11ac wireless
>> router, and it was using channels 36~44, which previously was not
>> available in Taiwan. After asking around, a friend at the vendor
>> said that Taiwan recently opened up that part of the spectrum.
>>
>> Unfortunately, [4][5] are Q&As transcripts with the regulatory body.
>> I cound only find them in Chinese. Suffice to say, Taiwan's NCC
>> follows the FCC closely whenever possible when it comes to wireless
>> stuff.
>>
>> As such, I also looked at the US rules. It seems they are using
>> "peak power spectral density" instead of "peak power output".
>> I believe this is wrong. My crude understanding is the former
>> is the amount of power in a single chunk of the complete channel,
>> while the latter is the actual power put out by the transmitter.
>> The former would be used to enforce a more uniform power distribution
>> over the wireless channel, while the later actually limits transmission
>> power, and thus range.
>
> I certainly don't qualify as a regulatory expert either. But the rules
> you're proposing to change came from Qualcomm Atheros, and I do have
> considerable confidence in their regualtory expertise. Therefore I'd
> want an ack from QCA before I'd consider applying this patch.

Thanks. I think there should be a written document about what the
rules should be like, or what is expected:

  1. WiFi channel boundaries or band boundaries
  2. peak output power or peak power spectral density

In http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/wireless-regdb/2015-July/000856.html
you mentioned the software is smart enough to work out how to combine
different bands and what channels to use, so I see no reason to explicitly
chop up contiguous spectrum, unless there are explicit rules forbidding
combined use of bands with different regulatory rules. AFAIK the FCC
only requires one to satisfy all rules when usage crosses band boundaries.

http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/wireless-regdb/2015-July/000857.html
also raises a similar question.

> I would however consider an update for 5.15-5.25 GHz and 5.6-5.65 GHz
> provided that there's official documentation to substantiate the change.
> I unfortunately cannot read Chinese, so I would need some assistance to
> confirm the documentation.

I could possibly ask around, though I'm not optimistic. The "official"
documents are just transcripts from NCC hosted Q&A sessions regarding
the latest regulations. Proposals/questions are submitted by vendors,
and the NCC responds and puts together an aggregated transcript.

Regards
ChenYu


From wens at csie.org  Tue Jul  7 20:07:20 2015
From: wens at csie.org (Chen-Yu Tsai)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:07:20 +0800
Subject: [wireless-regdb] [PATCH] wireless-regdb: Update regulatory
	rules for Taiwan (TW)
In-Reply-To: <CAGb2v67gw=Z32fLGzKP2S0OGf-fQPhCLEZdt4v5yZuRAvSis7g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1436256435-25048-1-git-send-email-wens@csie.org>
 <20150707205418.GC369@ubuntu-xps13>
 <CAGb2v67gw=Z32fLGzKP2S0OGf-fQPhCLEZdt4v5yZuRAvSis7g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGb2v65qjqLEaChkQDNYaZY7dnA3=DVVrAKQnR-wtggKQj5_+g@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens at csie.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Seth Forshee <seth.forshee at canonical.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 04:07:15PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
>>> Taiwan's Ministry of Transportation and Communications revised its
>>> frequency allocation rules [1], specifically opening up 5.15 GHz ~
>>> 5.25 GHz and 5.6 GHz ~ 5.65 GHz for U-NII applications, as well as
>>> explicitly mentioning U-NII applications and DFS requirements for
>>> the related frequency ranges.
>>>
>>> LP0002 [2], the technical standard for low power radio devices, hasn't
>>> been updated,though work is under way. The NCC, Taiwan's equivalent of
>>> the US FCC, has explicitly [3][4] allowed certification under the newest
>>> FCC Part 15E limitations, though unwanted emissions must still conform
>>> to LP0002 sections 2.7 ~ 2.8:
>>>
>>>   - 5150 MHz ~ 5250 MHz is not restricted to indoor usage.
>>>
>>>   - 5250 MHz ~ 5350 MHz and 5470 MHz ~ 5725 MHz devices should have DFS
>>>     capabilities, and conform to latest FCC radar standards.
>>>
>>>   - 5250 MHz ~ 5350 MHz without DFS capabilities are limited to indoor
>>>     usage, under current LP0002 restrictions.
>>>
>>> In addition, large channels across multiple U-NII bands are allowed
>>> under the same rules as FCC KDB 644545 [5].
>>>
>>> This patch updates the regulatory rules for Taiwan (TW) to reflect the
>>> changes noted above, and corrects transmit power limits for 5470 MHz ~
>>> 5725 MHz. In addition, the format of the rules has been modified:
>>>
>>>   - List band boundaries, instead of channel boundaries, and add AUTO-BW
>>>     for adjacent bands.
>>>
>>>   - List maximum transmit power using mW instead of dBm. This is easier
>>>     to find from the related documents.
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.motc.gov.tw/websitedowndoc?file=post/201411171137330.doc&filedisplay=Table+of+radio+frequency+allocation.doc
>>> [2] http://www.ncc.gov.tw/english/show_file.aspx?table_name=news&file_sn=681
>>> [3] http://www.rheintech.com/our-blog/item/585-taiwan-ncc-opens-5150-5250-mhz-for-wireless-devices
>>> [4] Proposal #10312260 (p.6, Chinese),
>>>     http://www.etc.org.tw/_library/K00/%E9%9B%BB%E4%BF%A1%E7%B5%82%E7%AB%AF%E8%A8%AD%E5%82%99%E5%AF%A9%E9%A9%97/1031223_nccqa56.pdf
>>> [5] Proposal #10202205 (p.3, Chinese),
>>>     http://www.etc.org.tw/_library/K00/%E4%BD%8E%E5%8A%9F%E7%8E%87%E8%A8%AD%E5%82%99%E5%AF%A9%E9%A9%97/1020221_nccqa50.pdf
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens at csie.org>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> First of all, I am _not_ a regulatory or wireless expert, nor is my
>>> field of work related, unless you count deploying access points as
>>> related.
>>>
>>> Last week I bought and deployed a new "Tri-band" 802.11ac wireless
>>> router, and it was using channels 36~44, which previously was not
>>> available in Taiwan. After asking around, a friend at the vendor
>>> said that Taiwan recently opened up that part of the spectrum.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, [4][5] are Q&As transcripts with the regulatory body.
>>> I cound only find them in Chinese. Suffice to say, Taiwan's NCC
>>> follows the FCC closely whenever possible when it comes to wireless
>>> stuff.
>>>
>>> As such, I also looked at the US rules. It seems they are using
>>> "peak power spectral density" instead of "peak power output".
>>> I believe this is wrong. My crude understanding is the former
>>> is the amount of power in a single chunk of the complete channel,
>>> while the latter is the actual power put out by the transmitter.
>>> The former would be used to enforce a more uniform power distribution
>>> over the wireless channel, while the later actually limits transmission
>>> power, and thus range.
>>
>> I certainly don't qualify as a regulatory expert either. But the rules
>> you're proposing to change came from Qualcomm Atheros, and I do have
>> considerable confidence in their regualtory expertise. Therefore I'd
>> want an ack from QCA before I'd consider applying this patch.
>
> Thanks. I think there should be a written document about what the
> rules should be like, or what is expected:
>
>   1. WiFi channel boundaries or band boundaries
>   2. peak output power or peak power spectral density
>
> In http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/wireless-regdb/2015-July/000856.html
> you mentioned the software is smart enough to work out how to combine
> different bands and what channels to use, so I see no reason to explicitly
> chop up contiguous spectrum, unless there are explicit rules forbidding
> combined use of bands with different regulatory rules. AFAIK the FCC
> only requires one to satisfy all rules when usage crosses band boundaries.
>
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/wireless-regdb/2015-July/000857.html
> also raises a similar question.
>
>> I would however consider an update for 5.15-5.25 GHz and 5.6-5.65 GHz
>> provided that there's official documentation to substantiate the change.
>> I unfortunately cannot read Chinese, so I would need some assistance to
>> confirm the documentation.
>
> I could possibly ask around, though I'm not optimistic. The "official"
> documents are just transcripts from NCC hosted Q&A sessions regarding
> the latest regulations. Proposals/questions are submitted by vendors,
> and the NCC responds and puts together an aggregated transcript.

Just got off the phone with the NCC. Their position is, spectrum allocation
is not within their purview, but the Ministry of Transportation and
Communications. As noted in the patch, they have already opened up the
spectrum to U-NII and low power radio usage. What remains is that the
NCC revise its testing standards. Until then, their position is that,
since their testing standards are modeled after FCC standards, vendors
can just test under FCC standards, then convert the reports into LP0002
format, and cite the FCC test report.

There is no formal English version of the Q&A transcript, at least not
until some foreign testing body requests it. The person in charge just
asked me to translate it myself...


Regards
ChenYu


From zefir.kurtisi at neratec.com  Wed Jul  8 03:19:18 2015
From: zefir.kurtisi at neratec.com (Zefir Kurtisi)
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 12:19:18 +0200
Subject: [wireless-regdb] wireless-regdb: update CA rules for 5600 -
	5650 mHz
In-Reply-To: <20150707201126.GB369@ubuntu-xps13>
References: <CAHr=Vq=hJr6WUQgFXftMSG2zYgwtCXgoTaXBzRfM8-kQa2-K2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <55966D1B.1040603@neratec.com>
 <CAHr=VqnpJ_+ovmB3gqm+X9WX98ZeVuO8VZ2cq6OFPcdjy8Rkgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5596A3C0.6020303@neratec.com> <20150706132707.GA22962@ubuntu-hedt>
 <559A9378.7000006@neratec.com> <20150707201126.GB369@ubuntu-xps13>
Message-ID: <559CF926.8000508@neratec.com>

On 07/07/2015 10:11 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 04:40:56PM +0200, Zefir Kurtisi wrote:
>> On 07/06/2015 03:27 PM, Seth Forshee wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 05:01:20PM +0200, Zefir Kurtisi wrote:
>>>> On 07/03/2015 04:20 PM, Wei Zhong wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> From your other post:
>>>>>>     >
>>>>>>     >  -       (5490 - 5730 @ 160), (24), DFS
>>>>>>     >  +       (5490 - 5590 @ 80), (24), DFS
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     I agree. 5590 is more strict than 5600.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> On a second thought,  5590 implies channel 116 can't have 40MHz. I think that is
>>>>>> still allowed per regulation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, channel 116 is not usable for HT40 if weather radar channels are disabled,
>>>> since it can only be combined with channel 120 and that one partially falls into
>>>> the restricted range.
>>>
>>> It's not necessary to restrict the band down to 5590 or break out the
>>> rule for channel 116 separately, the software is smart enough to work
>>> out what's allowed based on the original rule Wei supplied for 5490-5600
>>> MHz. In fact that rule exactly matches what we used to have in db.txt
>>> for the US prior to the TDWR restrictions being lifted.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, the SW is smart and sane enough to extract the limitations even if they are
>> defined less restrictive than required. Which raises the general question of what
>> needs to be defined as rule and what can be relied on to be handled correctly by
>> the SW.
>>
>> Example: why do we need to bother about the max-bw parameter for a rule at all? We
>> know there is no 160MHz channel within 5490 and 5600, as does the SW. If we wrote
>> (5490 - 5600 @ 160) instead of (5490 - 5600 @ 80), nothing would change.
>>
>> To me it sounds not fully consistent to explicitly limit max-bw while relying on
>> SW to sanitize frequency ranges. Not that it really matters in practice, but it
>> has a potential to simplify the rules (i.e. provide max-bw parameter only if the
>> according country defines restrictions and leave SW to handle it otherwise).
> 
> The database is just about capturing the rules of the various regulatory
> bodies. I don't know off the top of my head if there are any cases today
> where the maximum allowed badwidth in a given range is less than the
> maximum possible bandwidth in that range, but it certainly doesn't seem
> impossible. So I wouldn't call it inconsistent.
> 
> We aren't expecting the kernel to "sanitize" the frequency ranges
> either. It doesn't rely on the regdb to tell it which frequencies are
> legitimate.
> 
> Seth
> 
Sure and understood. Still I see room for ambiguity.

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)).

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.


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.


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.



Thanks,
Zefir




From seth.forshee at canonical.com  Thu Jul  9 07:04:17 2015
From: seth.forshee at canonical.com (Seth Forshee)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 09:04:17 -0500
Subject: [wireless-regdb] wireless-regdb: update CA rules for 5600 -
	5650 mHz
In-Reply-To: <559CF926.8000508@neratec.com>
References: <CAHr=Vq=hJr6WUQgFXftMSG2zYgwtCXgoTaXBzRfM8-kQa2-K2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <55966D1B.1040603@neratec.com>
 <CAHr=VqnpJ_+ovmB3gqm+X9WX98ZeVuO8VZ2cq6OFPcdjy8Rkgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5596A3C0.6020303@neratec.com> <20150706132707.GA22962@ubuntu-hedt>
 <559A9378.7000006@neratec.com> <20150707201126.GB369@ubuntu-xps13>
 <559CF926.8000508@neratec.com>
Message-ID: <20150709140417.GA142895@ubuntu-hedt>

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


From seth.forshee at canonical.com  Thu Jul  9 08:15:55 2015
From: seth.forshee at canonical.com (Seth Forshee)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 10:15:55 -0500
Subject: [wireless-regdb] [PATCH] wireless-regdb: Update regulatory
	rules for Taiwan (TW)
In-Reply-To: <CAGb2v65qjqLEaChkQDNYaZY7dnA3=DVVrAKQnR-wtggKQj5_+g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1436256435-25048-1-git-send-email-wens@csie.org>
 <20150707205418.GC369@ubuntu-xps13>
 <CAGb2v67gw=Z32fLGzKP2S0OGf-fQPhCLEZdt4v5yZuRAvSis7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGb2v65qjqLEaChkQDNYaZY7dnA3=DVVrAKQnR-wtggKQj5_+g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150709151555.GB142895@ubuntu-hedt>

On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 11:07:20AM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> > Thanks. I think there should be a written document about what the
> > rules should be like, or what is expected:
> >
> >   1. WiFi channel boundaries or band boundaries
> >   2. peak output power or peak power spectral density
> >
> > In http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/wireless-regdb/2015-July/000856.html
> > you mentioned the software is smart enough to work out how to combine
> > different bands and what channels to use, so I see no reason to explicitly
> > chop up contiguous spectrum, unless there are explicit rules forbidding
> > combined use of bands with different regulatory rules. AFAIK the FCC
> > only requires one to satisfy all rules when usage crosses band boundaries.
> >
> > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/wireless-regdb/2015-July/000857.html
> > also raises a similar question.

I was really commenting about the transmit power updates in your patch.
I just compared the frequency changes to the documentation you linked to
and those do look okay to me.

> >> I would however consider an update for 5.15-5.25 GHz and 5.6-5.65 GHz
> >> provided that there's official documentation to substantiate the change.
> >> I unfortunately cannot read Chinese, so I would need some assistance to
> >> confirm the documentation.
> >
> > I could possibly ask around, though I'm not optimistic. The "official"
> > documents are just transcripts from NCC hosted Q&A sessions regarding
> > the latest regulations. Proposals/questions are submitted by vendors,
> > and the NCC responds and puts together an aggregated transcript.
> 
> Just got off the phone with the NCC. Their position is, spectrum allocation
> is not within their purview, but the Ministry of Transportation and
> Communications. As noted in the patch, they have already opened up the
> spectrum to U-NII and low power radio usage. What remains is that the
> NCC revise its testing standards. Until then, their position is that,
> since their testing standards are modeled after FCC standards, vendors
> can just test under FCC standards, then convert the reports into LP0002
> format, and cite the FCC test report.
> 
> There is no formal English version of the Q&A transcript, at least not
> until some foreign testing body requests it. The person in charge just
> asked me to translate it myself...

If you send a patch which updates only the frequencies I would likely
apply that after allowing a week or so for others to either ack or nack
it (and running the stuff you linked to through google translate and
seeing if I could make any sense of the output).

I think the power updates are probably based on a misunderstanding, and
may not even be completely correct. For the most part after they've been
converted to EIRP (eirp = 10 * log10(mW)) they don't turn out to be
substantially different than what we have now. I think the value in
5250-5350 MHz is probably incorrect however. Based on my quick skim of
the document you linked to it should be 50 mW rather than 250. 50 mW
also roughly matches to the 17 dBm which is in the database today,
whereas 250 mW is closer to 24 dBm.

My suggestion would be update the frequencies but not the existing
transmit power limits, unless you discover that any of the power limits
are definitely incorrect.

Thanks,
Seth


From seth.forshee at canonical.com  Mon Jul 20 07:13:24 2015
From: seth.forshee at canonical.com (Seth Forshee)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:13:24 -0500
Subject: [wireless-regdb] [PATCH] wireless-regdb: update CA rules for
	5600 - 5650 mHz
In-Reply-To: <1436202593-12701-1-git-send-email-wzhong@google.com>
References: <1436202593-12701-1-git-send-email-wzhong@google.com>
Message-ID: <20150720141324.GA41548@ubuntu-hedt>

On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 10:09:53AM -0700, Wei Zhong wrote:
> Related regulation:
> http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf10971.html#s6.2.3
> 
> Frequency Bands 5470-5600 MHz and 5650-5725 MHz
> Until further notice, devices subject to this section [i.e. Wifi device
> supporting 5 GHz bands] shall not be capable of transmitting in the band
> 5600-5650 MHz. This restriction is for the protection of Environment
> Canada?s weather radars operating in this band.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wei Zhong <wzhong at google.com>

Applied. I went ahead and bumped the 5490-5590 MHz range back up to 5600
MHz as per the subsequent discussion on the first patch. Thanks!


From seth.forshee at canonical.com  Mon Jul 20 08:12:53 2015
From: seth.forshee at canonical.com (Seth Forshee)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:12:53 -0500
Subject: [wireless-regdb] [ANN] wireless-regdb: master-2015-07-20
Message-ID: <20150720151253.GB41548@ubuntu-hedt>

A new release of wireless-regdb (master-2015-07-20) is available at:

https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/network/wireless-regdb/wireless-regdb-2015.07.20.tar.gz

The short log of changes since the 2015-06-05 release is below.

Thanks,
Seth

---

Seth Forshee (1):
      wireless-regdb: update regulatory.bin based on preceding changes

Wei Zhong (1):
      wireless-regdb: update CA rules for 5600 - 5650 mHz


From wens at csie.org  Wed Jul 22 00:40:53 2015
From: wens at csie.org (Chen-Yu Tsai)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:40:53 +0800
Subject: [wireless-regdb] [PATCH] wireless-regdb: Update regulatory
	rules for Taiwan (TW)
In-Reply-To: <20150709151555.GB142895@ubuntu-hedt>
References: <1436256435-25048-1-git-send-email-wens@csie.org>
 <20150707205418.GC369@ubuntu-xps13>
 <CAGb2v67gw=Z32fLGzKP2S0OGf-fQPhCLEZdt4v5yZuRAvSis7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGb2v65qjqLEaChkQDNYaZY7dnA3=DVVrAKQnR-wtggKQj5_+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150709151555.GB142895@ubuntu-hedt>
Message-ID: <CAGb2v64D9-1WL_Z5K1+4eq1c57UCMtEW1bXoMJM1NAQr25qLUw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:15 PM, Seth Forshee
<seth.forshee at canonical.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 11:07:20AM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
>> > Thanks. I think there should be a written document about what the
>> > rules should be like, or what is expected:
>> >
>> >   1. WiFi channel boundaries or band boundaries
>> >   2. peak output power or peak power spectral density
>> >
>> > In http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/wireless-regdb/2015-July/000856.html
>> > you mentioned the software is smart enough to work out how to combine
>> > different bands and what channels to use, so I see no reason to explicitly
>> > chop up contiguous spectrum, unless there are explicit rules forbidding
>> > combined use of bands with different regulatory rules. AFAIK the FCC
>> > only requires one to satisfy all rules when usage crosses band boundaries.
>> >
>> > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/wireless-regdb/2015-July/000857.html
>> > also raises a similar question.
>
> I was really commenting about the transmit power updates in your patch.
> I just compared the frequency changes to the documentation you linked to
> and those do look okay to me.

I see.

>> >> I would however consider an update for 5.15-5.25 GHz and 5.6-5.65 GHz
>> >> provided that there's official documentation to substantiate the change.
>> >> I unfortunately cannot read Chinese, so I would need some assistance to
>> >> confirm the documentation.
>> >
>> > I could possibly ask around, though I'm not optimistic. The "official"
>> > documents are just transcripts from NCC hosted Q&A sessions regarding
>> > the latest regulations. Proposals/questions are submitted by vendors,
>> > and the NCC responds and puts together an aggregated transcript.
>>
>> Just got off the phone with the NCC. Their position is, spectrum allocation
>> is not within their purview, but the Ministry of Transportation and
>> Communications. As noted in the patch, they have already opened up the
>> spectrum to U-NII and low power radio usage. What remains is that the
>> NCC revise its testing standards. Until then, their position is that,
>> since their testing standards are modeled after FCC standards, vendors
>> can just test under FCC standards, then convert the reports into LP0002
>> format, and cite the FCC test report.
>>
>> There is no formal English version of the Q&A transcript, at least not
>> until some foreign testing body requests it. The person in charge just
>> asked me to translate it myself...
>
> If you send a patch which updates only the frequencies I would likely
> apply that after allowing a week or so for others to either ack or nack
> it (and running the stuff you linked to through google translate and
> seeing if I could make any sense of the output).

Got it.

> I think the power updates are probably based on a misunderstanding, and
> may not even be completely correct. For the most part after they've been
> converted to EIRP (eirp = 10 * log10(mW)) they don't turn out to be
> substantially different than what we have now. I think the value in
> 5250-5350 MHz is probably incorrect however. Based on my quick skim of
> the document you linked to it should be 50 mW rather than 250. 50 mW
> also roughly matches to the 17 dBm which is in the database today,
> whereas 250 mW is closer to 24 dBm.

Yes. About the first part, it seems dbparse.py converts values in mW
into EIRP anyway. However I don't think EIRT equals "peak power spectral
density".

About the second part, yes the current values match the ones in LP0002.
However as I stated, the regulatory body has explicitly allowed certifying
under the latest FCC rules, which effectively raises the limits from
50 mW to 250 mW.

> My suggestion would be update the frequencies but not the existing
> transmit power limits, unless you discover that any of the power limits
> are definitely incorrect.

I'll split up the patch into 3:

  1. Add the new 5150 - 5250 frequency band, using current LP0002
     limits if any, otherwise FCC limits.

  2. Tweak frequency boundaries for the remaining bands to make
     them contiguous and properly reflect the regulations rather
     than the WiFi channel frequencies.

  3. Update power limits and DFS requirements to latest FCC standards.

Each patch will then explain why and how the regulations changed
along with references, in English if available.

You can then decide on whether to merge all three or just the first
two.


Regards
ChenYu


From wens at csie.org  Wed Jul 22 00:56:52 2015
From: wens at csie.org (Chen-Yu Tsai)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:56:52 +0800
Subject: [wireless-regdb] [PATCH] wireless-regdb: Update regulatory
	rules for Taiwan (TW)
In-Reply-To: <CAGb2v64D9-1WL_Z5K1+4eq1c57UCMtEW1bXoMJM1NAQr25qLUw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1436256435-25048-1-git-send-email-wens@csie.org>
 <20150707205418.GC369@ubuntu-xps13>
 <CAGb2v67gw=Z32fLGzKP2S0OGf-fQPhCLEZdt4v5yZuRAvSis7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGb2v65qjqLEaChkQDNYaZY7dnA3=DVVrAKQnR-wtggKQj5_+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150709151555.GB142895@ubuntu-hedt>
 <CAGb2v64D9-1WL_Z5K1+4eq1c57UCMtEW1bXoMJM1NAQr25qLUw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGb2v65aLaHarHym6XQN_uz5nNiU8SMCuhVZ+GJ3_FVmRqk4uQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens at csie.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:15 PM, Seth Forshee
> <seth.forshee at canonical.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 11:07:20AM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
>>> > Thanks. I think there should be a written document about what the
>>> > rules should be like, or what is expected:
>>> >
>>> >   1. WiFi channel boundaries or band boundaries
>>> >   2. peak output power or peak power spectral density
>>> >
>>> > In http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/wireless-regdb/2015-July/000856.html
>>> > you mentioned the software is smart enough to work out how to combine
>>> > different bands and what channels to use, so I see no reason to explicitly
>>> > chop up contiguous spectrum, unless there are explicit rules forbidding
>>> > combined use of bands with different regulatory rules. AFAIK the FCC
>>> > only requires one to satisfy all rules when usage crosses band boundaries.
>>> >
>>> > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/wireless-regdb/2015-July/000857.html
>>> > also raises a similar question.
>>
>> I was really commenting about the transmit power updates in your patch.
>> I just compared the frequency changes to the documentation you linked to
>> and those do look okay to me.
>
> I see.
>
>>> >> I would however consider an update for 5.15-5.25 GHz and 5.6-5.65 GHz
>>> >> provided that there's official documentation to substantiate the change.
>>> >> I unfortunately cannot read Chinese, so I would need some assistance to
>>> >> confirm the documentation.
>>> >
>>> > I could possibly ask around, though I'm not optimistic. The "official"
>>> > documents are just transcripts from NCC hosted Q&A sessions regarding
>>> > the latest regulations. Proposals/questions are submitted by vendors,
>>> > and the NCC responds and puts together an aggregated transcript.
>>>
>>> Just got off the phone with the NCC. Their position is, spectrum allocation
>>> is not within their purview, but the Ministry of Transportation and
>>> Communications. As noted in the patch, they have already opened up the
>>> spectrum to U-NII and low power radio usage. What remains is that the
>>> NCC revise its testing standards. Until then, their position is that,
>>> since their testing standards are modeled after FCC standards, vendors
>>> can just test under FCC standards, then convert the reports into LP0002
>>> format, and cite the FCC test report.
>>>
>>> There is no formal English version of the Q&A transcript, at least not
>>> until some foreign testing body requests it. The person in charge just
>>> asked me to translate it myself...
>>
>> If you send a patch which updates only the frequencies I would likely
>> apply that after allowing a week or so for others to either ack or nack
>> it (and running the stuff you linked to through google translate and
>> seeing if I could make any sense of the output).
>
> Got it.
>
>> I think the power updates are probably based on a misunderstanding, and
>> may not even be completely correct. For the most part after they've been
>> converted to EIRP (eirp = 10 * log10(mW)) they don't turn out to be
>> substantially different than what we have now. I think the value in
>> 5250-5350 MHz is probably incorrect however. Based on my quick skim of
>> the document you linked to it should be 50 mW rather than 250. 50 mW
>> also roughly matches to the 17 dBm which is in the database today,
>> whereas 250 mW is closer to 24 dBm.
>
> Yes. About the first part, it seems dbparse.py converts values in mW
> into EIRP anyway. However I don't think EIRT equals "peak power spectral
> density".

Sorry, this part applies to the US rules, not part of this patch.

> About the second part, yes the current values match the ones in LP0002.
> However as I stated, the regulatory body has explicitly allowed certifying
> under the latest FCC rules, which effectively raises the limits from
> 50 mW to 250 mW.
>
>> My suggestion would be update the frequencies but not the existing
>> transmit power limits, unless you discover that any of the power limits
>> are definitely incorrect.
>
> I'll split up the patch into 3:
>
>   1. Add the new 5150 - 5250 frequency band, using current LP0002
>      limits if any, otherwise FCC limits.
>
>   2. Tweak frequency boundaries for the remaining bands to make
>      them contiguous and properly reflect the regulations rather
>      than the WiFi channel frequencies.
>
>   3. Update power limits and DFS requirements to latest FCC standards.
>
> Each patch will then explain why and how the regulations changed
> along with references, in English if available.
>
> You can then decide on whether to merge all three or just the first
> two.
>
>
> Regards
> ChenYu


From wens at csie.org  Wed Jul 22 07:49:53 2015
From: wens at csie.org (Chen-Yu Tsai)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 22:49:53 +0800
Subject: [wireless-regdb] [PATCH] wireless-regdb: Update regulatory
	rules for Taiwan (TW)
In-Reply-To: <CAGb2v65aLaHarHym6XQN_uz5nNiU8SMCuhVZ+GJ3_FVmRqk4uQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1436256435-25048-1-git-send-email-wens@csie.org>
 <20150707205418.GC369@ubuntu-xps13>
 <CAGb2v67gw=Z32fLGzKP2S0OGf-fQPhCLEZdt4v5yZuRAvSis7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGb2v65qjqLEaChkQDNYaZY7dnA3=DVVrAKQnR-wtggKQj5_+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150709151555.GB142895@ubuntu-hedt>
 <CAGb2v64D9-1WL_Z5K1+4eq1c57UCMtEW1bXoMJM1NAQr25qLUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGb2v65aLaHarHym6XQN_uz5nNiU8SMCuhVZ+GJ3_FVmRqk4uQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGb2v67YxmzD4uLXaWou57eVTSB9t8gSv0ZAue27Vrtf+eZJmw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens at csie.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens at csie.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:15 PM, Seth Forshee
>> <seth.forshee at canonical.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 11:07:20AM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
>>>> > Thanks. I think there should be a written document about what the
>>>> > rules should be like, or what is expected:
>>>> >
>>>> >   1. WiFi channel boundaries or band boundaries
>>>> >   2. peak output power or peak power spectral density
>>>> >
>>>> > In http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/wireless-regdb/2015-July/000856.html
>>>> > you mentioned the software is smart enough to work out how to combine
>>>> > different bands and what channels to use, so I see no reason to explicitly
>>>> > chop up contiguous spectrum, unless there are explicit rules forbidding
>>>> > combined use of bands with different regulatory rules. AFAIK the FCC
>>>> > only requires one to satisfy all rules when usage crosses band boundaries.
>>>> >
>>>> > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/wireless-regdb/2015-July/000857.html
>>>> > also raises a similar question.
>>>
>>> I was really commenting about the transmit power updates in your patch.
>>> I just compared the frequency changes to the documentation you linked to
>>> and those do look okay to me.
>>
>> I see.
>>
>>>> >> I would however consider an update for 5.15-5.25 GHz and 5.6-5.65 GHz
>>>> >> provided that there's official documentation to substantiate the change.
>>>> >> I unfortunately cannot read Chinese, so I would need some assistance to
>>>> >> confirm the documentation.
>>>> >
>>>> > I could possibly ask around, though I'm not optimistic. The "official"
>>>> > documents are just transcripts from NCC hosted Q&A sessions regarding
>>>> > the latest regulations. Proposals/questions are submitted by vendors,
>>>> > and the NCC responds and puts together an aggregated transcript.
>>>>
>>>> Just got off the phone with the NCC. Their position is, spectrum allocation
>>>> is not within their purview, but the Ministry of Transportation and
>>>> Communications. As noted in the patch, they have already opened up the
>>>> spectrum to U-NII and low power radio usage. What remains is that the
>>>> NCC revise its testing standards. Until then, their position is that,
>>>> since their testing standards are modeled after FCC standards, vendors
>>>> can just test under FCC standards, then convert the reports into LP0002
>>>> format, and cite the FCC test report.
>>>>
>>>> There is no formal English version of the Q&A transcript, at least not
>>>> until some foreign testing body requests it. The person in charge just
>>>> asked me to translate it myself...
>>>
>>> If you send a patch which updates only the frequencies I would likely
>>> apply that after allowing a week or so for others to either ack or nack
>>> it (and running the stuff you linked to through google translate and
>>> seeing if I could make any sense of the output).
>>
>> Got it.
>>
>>> I think the power updates are probably based on a misunderstanding, and
>>> may not even be completely correct. For the most part after they've been
>>> converted to EIRP (eirp = 10 * log10(mW)) they don't turn out to be
>>> substantially different than what we have now. I think the value in
>>> 5250-5350 MHz is probably incorrect however. Based on my quick skim of
>>> the document you linked to it should be 50 mW rather than 250. 50 mW
>>> also roughly matches to the 17 dBm which is in the database today,
>>> whereas 250 mW is closer to 24 dBm.
>>
>> Yes. About the first part, it seems dbparse.py converts values in mW
>> into EIRP anyway. However I don't think EIRT equals "peak power spectral
>> density".
>
> Sorry, this part applies to the US rules, not part of this patch.

I just realized that what I misunderstood as PSD was the fact that no one
had updated the power limits of U-NII-1 for the US. I've added such a patch
to my series.

Sorry for the noise.

>> About the second part, yes the current values match the ones in LP0002.
>> However as I stated, the regulatory body has explicitly allowed certifying
>> under the latest FCC rules, which effectively raises the limits from
>> 50 mW to 250 mW.
>>
>>> My suggestion would be update the frequencies but not the existing
>>> transmit power limits, unless you discover that any of the power limits
>>> are definitely incorrect.
>>
>> I'll split up the patch into 3:
>>
>>   1. Add the new 5150 - 5250 frequency band, using current LP0002
>>      limits if any, otherwise FCC limits.
>>
>>   2. Tweak frequency boundaries for the remaining bands to make
>>      them contiguous and properly reflect the regulations rather
>>      than the WiFi channel frequencies.
>>
>>   3. Update power limits and DFS requirements to latest FCC standards.
>>
>> Each patch will then explain why and how the regulations changed
>> along with references, in English if available.
>>
>> You can then decide on whether to merge all three or just the first
>> two.
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> ChenYu


From wens at csie.org  Wed Jul 22 20:32:55 2015
From: wens at csie.org (Chen-Yu Tsai)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:32:55 +0800
Subject: [wireless-regdb] [PATCH v2 0/5] wireless-regdb: Update TW and US
	rules to latest regulations
Message-ID: <1437622380-4154-1-git-send-email-wens@csie.org>

Hi Seth,

I've split up my original patch into 4, each addressing a small part of
the original. I've also added a patch to update the US 5150 ~ 5250 MHz
rule.

Patch 1 updates the 5470 ~ 5725 MHz rules for Taiwan, specifically
the opening up of 5600 ~ 5650 MHz spectrum previously allocated to
weather radars. The transmission power limit is also corrected to
match the regulations.

Patch 2 changes the boundary frequencies for each rule for Taiwan to
match the frequency allocation table. The "regulation" database shouldn't
care about artificial channel boundaries.

Patch 3 adds the previously unusable 5150 ~ 5250 MHz band for Taiwan.

Patch 4 updates the transmission power limits for 5150 ~ 5250 MHz for
the US.

Patch 5 updates the transmission power limits for Taiwan, per the NCC's
official reply. This patch may be slightly controversial, as there is
no official English document. Either someone will have to independently
verify this, or translate the Chinese document.


Regards
ChenYu

Chen-Yu Tsai (5):
  wireless-regdb: Update U-NII-2c (5470 ~ 5725 MHz) rules for Taiwan
    (TW)
  wireless-regdb: Update regulatory rule boundary frequencies for Taiwan
    (TW)
  wireless-regdb: Add U-NII-1 (5150 ~ 5250 MHz) band for Taiwan (TW)
  wireless-regdb: Update 5GHz rules for US
  wireless-regdb: Update 5 GHz rules for Taiwan (TW) to follow US

 db.txt | 21 ++++++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

-- 
2.1.4



From wens at csie.org  Wed Jul 22 20:32:59 2015
From: wens at csie.org (Chen-Yu Tsai)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:32:59 +0800
Subject: [wireless-regdb] [PATCH v2 4/5] wireless-regdb: Update 5GHz rules
	for US
In-Reply-To: <1437622380-4154-1-git-send-email-wens@csie.org>
References: <1437622380-4154-1-git-send-email-wens@csie.org>
Message-ID: <1437622380-4154-5-git-send-email-wens@csie.org>

The FCC increased the maximum conducted transmission power for the
U-NII-1 (5150 ~ 5250 MHz) band to 30 dBm or 1 W for master devices
and 24 dBm or 250 mW for mobile/portable devices.

Effective 6/2/2014.

See FCC KDB 905462 D06.

Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens at csie.org>
---
 db.txt | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt
index cadd52c..29ba4b6 100644
--- a/db.txt
+++ b/db.txt
@@ -1160,7 +1160,7 @@ country UG: DFS-FCC
 
 country US: DFS-FCC
 	(2402 - 2472 @ 40), (30)
-	(5170 - 5250 @ 80), (17), AUTO-BW
+	(5170 - 5250 @ 80), (30), AUTO-BW
 	(5250 - 5330 @ 80), (23), DFS, AUTO-BW
 	(5490 - 5730 @ 160), (23), DFS
 	(5735 - 5835 @ 80), (30)
-- 
2.1.4



From wens at csie.org  Wed Jul 22 20:32:56 2015
From: wens at csie.org (Chen-Yu Tsai)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:32:56 +0800
Subject: [wireless-regdb] [PATCH v2 1/5] wireless-regdb: Update U-NII-2c
	(5470 ~ 5725 MHz) rules for Taiwan (TW)
In-Reply-To: <1437622380-4154-1-git-send-email-wens@csie.org>
References: <1437622380-4154-1-git-send-email-wens@csie.org>
Message-ID: <1437622380-4154-2-git-send-email-wens@csie.org>

Taiwan's Ministry of Transportation and Communications revised its
frequency allocation rules [1] on 2014/11/17, allowing usage of 5600 ~
5650 MHz, previously allocated to weather radars, to U-NII applications
with DFS support.

Also, the technical regulations [2] show that for 5470 ~ 5725 MHz U-NII
applications, the peak transmit power shall not exceed the lesser of
250 mW (slightly less than 24 dBm) or 11 dBm + 10log B, where B is the
26dB emission bandwidth in MHz. This is slightly more than 23 dBm for
20 MHz channels.

This patch updates both. Also add links to the two documents into the
database.

[1] http://www.motc.gov.tw/websitedowndoc?file=post/201411171137330.doc&filedisplay=Table+of+radio+frequency+allocation.doc
[2] http://www.ncc.gov.tw/english/show_file.aspx?table_name=news&file_sn=681

Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens at csie.org>
---
 db.txt | 10 ++++++++--
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt
index 982db34..5114557 100644
--- a/db.txt
+++ b/db.txt
@@ -1118,11 +1118,17 @@ country TT: DFS-FCC
 	(5490 - 5730 @ 160), (24), DFS
 	(5735 - 5835 @ 80), (30)
 
+# Source:
+# Table of Frequency Allocations of Republic of China (Taiwan) / Nov 2014:
+#   http://www.motc.gov.tw/websitedowndoc?file=post/201411171137330.doc& \
+#      filedisplay=Table+of+radio+frequency+allocation.doc
+# LP0002 Low-power Radio-frequency Devices Technical Regulations / 28 Jun 2011:
+#   http://www.ncc.gov.tw/english/show_file.aspx?table_name=news&file_sn=681
+#   (section 3.10.1, 4.7)
 country TW: DFS-JP
 	(2402 - 2472 @ 40), (30)
 	(5270 - 5330 @ 40), (17), DFS
-	(5490 - 5590 @ 80), (30), DFS
-	(5650 - 5710 @ 40), (30), DFS
+	(5470 - 5725 @ 160), (23), DFS
 	(5735 - 5835 @ 80), (30)
  
 country TZ:
-- 
2.1.4



From wens at csie.org  Wed Jul 22 20:32:57 2015
From: wens at csie.org (Chen-Yu Tsai)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:32:57 +0800
Subject: [wireless-regdb] [PATCH v2 2/5] wireless-regdb: Update regulatory
	rule boundary frequencies for Taiwan (TW)
In-Reply-To: <1437622380-4154-1-git-send-email-wens@csie.org>
References: <1437622380-4154-1-git-send-email-wens@csie.org>
Message-ID: <1437622380-4154-3-git-send-email-wens@csie.org>

Taiwan's frequency allocation rules [1] list the following frequency
ranges available for low power RF devices:

  - 2400 ~ 2483.5 MHz
  - 5150 ~ 5250 MHz
  - 5250 ~ 5350 MHz
  - 5470 ~ 5725 MHz
  - 5725 ~ 5850 MHz

Update the rules to match. Since 5250 ~ 5350 MHz is wide enough for
VHT80, and there are no regulations against it, enable it as well.

[1] http://www.motc.gov.tw/websitedowndoc?file=post/201411171137330.doc&filedisplay=Table+of+radio+frequency+allocation.doc
[2] http://www.ncc.gov.tw/english/show_file.aspx?table_name=news&file_sn=681

Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens at csie.org>
---
 db.txt | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt
index 5114557..8a05c57 100644
--- a/db.txt
+++ b/db.txt
@@ -1126,10 +1126,10 @@ country TT: DFS-FCC
 #   http://www.ncc.gov.tw/english/show_file.aspx?table_name=news&file_sn=681
 #   (section 3.10.1, 4.7)
 country TW: DFS-JP
-	(2402 - 2472 @ 40), (30)
-	(5270 - 5330 @ 40), (17), DFS
+	(2400 - 2483.5 @ 40), (30)
+	(5250 - 5350 @ 80), (17), DFS
 	(5470 - 5725 @ 160), (23), DFS
-	(5735 - 5835 @ 80), (30)
+	(5725 - 5850 @ 80), (30)
  
 country TZ:
 	(2402 - 2482 @ 40), (20)
-- 
2.1.4



From wens at csie.org  Wed Jul 22 20:32:58 2015
From: wens at csie.org (Chen-Yu Tsai)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:32:58 +0800
Subject: [wireless-regdb] [PATCH v2 3/5] wireless-regdb: Add U-NII-1 (5150 ~
	5250 MHz) band for Taiwan (TW)
In-Reply-To: <1437622380-4154-1-git-send-email-wens@csie.org>
References: <1437622380-4154-1-git-send-email-wens@csie.org>
Message-ID: <1437622380-4154-4-git-send-email-wens@csie.org>

Taiwan's Ministry of Transportation and Communications revised its
frequency allocation rules [1] on 2014/11/17, opening up 5150 ~ 5250
MHz to U-NII applications.

Taiwan's regulatory body, NCC, officially stated [3][4] that until
the technical regulatory standard [2] are updated to cover this part
of the spectrum, FCC rules (part 15E, 15.407, effective 2014/06/02)
shall serve in its place.

Also add AUTO-BW to this and the next (5250 ~ 5350 MHz) rule, so the
system can actually use VHT160 channels spanning these two rules.

[1] http://www.motc.gov.tw/websitedowndoc?file=post/201411171137330.doc&filedisplay=Table+of+radio+frequency+allocation.doc
[2] http://www.ncc.gov.tw/english/show_file.aspx?table_name=news&file_sn=681
[3] http://www.rheintech.com/our-blog/item/585-taiwan-ncc-opens-5150-5250-mhz-for-wireless-devices
[4] Proposal #10312260 (p.6, Chinese),
    http://www.etc.org.tw/_library/K00/%E9%9B%BB%E4%BF%A1%E7%B5%82%E7%AB%AF%E8%A8%AD%E5%82%99%E5%AF%A9%E9%A9%97/1031223_nccqa56.pdf

Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens at csie.org>
---
 db.txt | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt
index 8a05c57..cadd52c 100644
--- a/db.txt
+++ b/db.txt
@@ -1127,7 +1127,8 @@ country TT: DFS-FCC
 #   (section 3.10.1, 4.7)
 country TW: DFS-JP
 	(2400 - 2483.5 @ 40), (30)
-	(5250 - 5350 @ 80), (17), DFS
+	(5150 - 5250 @ 80), (30), AUTO-BW
+	(5250 - 5350 @ 80), (17), DFS, AUTO-BW
 	(5470 - 5725 @ 160), (23), DFS
 	(5725 - 5850 @ 80), (30)
  
-- 
2.1.4



From wens at csie.org  Wed Jul 22 20:33:00 2015
From: wens at csie.org (Chen-Yu Tsai)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:33:00 +0800
Subject: [wireless-regdb] [PATCH v2 5/5] wireless-regdb: Update 5 GHz rules
	for Taiwan (TW) to follow US
In-Reply-To: <1437622380-4154-1-git-send-email-wens@csie.org>
References: <1437622380-4154-1-git-send-email-wens@csie.org>
Message-ID: <1437622380-4154-6-git-send-email-wens@csie.org>

Following the amendment of FCC part 15E and U-NII regulations effective
2014/06/02, and the opening up of 5150 ~ 5250 MHz and 5600 ~ 5650 MHz
spectrum in Taiwan, vendors have asked whether Taiwan's regulations
would be updated to match the new FCC rules, when this would happen,
and what to do in the interim.

The NCC, Taiwan's regulatory body has officially replied that new
amendments are under way, and the goal is to match the FCC rules.
Until the amendments come through, vendors are free to test and
submit applications using the new FCC rules for transmission power
limits and DFS requirements, though unintended / unwanted emissions
must still conform to the current standard, LP0002. [1][2]

This has been confirmed via a phone call to the NCC.

[1] http://www.rheintech.com/our-blog/item/585-taiwan-ncc-opens-5150-5250-mhz-for-wireless-devices
[2] Proposal #10312260 (p.6, Chinese),
    http://www.etc.org.tw/_library/K00/%E9%9B%BB%E4%BF%A1%E7%B5%82%E7%AB%AF%E8%A8%AD%E5%82%99%E5%AF%A9%E9%A9%97/1031223_nccqa56.pdf

Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens at csie.org>
---
 db.txt | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt
index 29ba4b6..56fbba3 100644
--- a/db.txt
+++ b/db.txt
@@ -1125,10 +1125,10 @@ country TT: DFS-FCC
 # LP0002 Low-power Radio-frequency Devices Technical Regulations / 28 Jun 2011:
 #   http://www.ncc.gov.tw/english/show_file.aspx?table_name=news&file_sn=681
 #   (section 3.10.1, 4.7)
-country TW: DFS-JP
+country TW: DFS-FCC
 	(2400 - 2483.5 @ 40), (30)
 	(5150 - 5250 @ 80), (30), AUTO-BW
-	(5250 - 5350 @ 80), (17), DFS, AUTO-BW
+	(5250 - 5350 @ 80), (23), DFS, AUTO-BW
 	(5470 - 5725 @ 160), (23), DFS
 	(5725 - 5850 @ 80), (30)
  
-- 
2.1.4



