| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
| --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
Mike/Mark/et. al., I don’t quite understand what the
problem is. Local regulation ALWAYS trumps (sic) anything in a voluntary
standard (noting that standards can be cited in regulations and consequently
become regulatory matter which to my knowledge is NOT the case for .11 …
yet!). I’ve always considered the “regulatory info/annexes”
in .11 as informative anyway. Is there a reason to believe that an
implementer could use reliance on a standard over such regulations as an
argument in a court of law to “prove his conformance case” against
a regulator? RR From: ***** 802.11 REVm
- Revision Maintainance List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of M Montemurro --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical
Reflector --- Mark and all, Thanks for your feedback. Attached (because I don't have a better way to show it) is the
reference that Peter sent me that prompted me to propose this change. Another option is to add a note in the table to clearly indicate
that these operating classes the behavior is restricted to 11b only. (perhaps
in the Behavior Limits set column). I guess one other question I have (that always comes up in
the discussion about channel 14) is are there any recent devices that actually
support operation on channel 14? Cheers, Mike On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 10:28 PM
To
unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGM list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGM list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM&A=1 |