On 17 Sep 2013, at 09:33, Paul Lambert <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Yes – I feel it's important to retain a definition and identification of the channels. Can you elaborate on why you feel that's important? Why does a device "care" about the fact that the US TV band is split into four discrete bands - surely all that matters is the specific frequencies it's permitted to use? I may not be fully understanding your notion of a discontinuity within a band. I'd typically assume that system need well defined channels within a band that each could be also given masks that might vary depending on adjacency considerations. In the OFCOM model channel 38 will not be available for _primary_ transmission, but AIUI a very small amount of adjacent channel leakage into it will be permitted. The OFCOM / ETSI model doesn't need (or want) masks to be encoded within the messages for that channel, they're implicit in the device approval requirements. To further reduce the adjacent channel leakage the permitted power levels (for certain WSD emission classes) for primary transmissions in the adjacent channels are also reduced. That frequency is therefore simply omitted from the list of available channels. What I don't want to see is that break _within_ the band getting conflated with breaks _between_ bands. Ray
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
