Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [bufferbloat-fcc-discuss] arstechnica confirmstp-link router lockdown

From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
To: Wayne Workman <wayne.workman2012@gmail.com>
Cc: bufferbloat-fcc-discuss
	<bufferbloat-fcc-discuss@lists.redbarn.org>,
	make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net,
	cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net, dpreed@reed.com
Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [bufferbloat-fcc-discuss] arstechnica confirmstp-link router lockdown
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 15:29:16 -0700 (PDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1603141529010.25586@nftneq.ynat.uz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEfCu-pGdkcqHJMHSiXtXBcx=m0XyskVOLmGjC2esS+SY+GgcQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016, Wayne Workman wrote:

> One thing Is for sure - if the FCC can't see this, they will have
> effectively handicapped yet another technology, they will basically kill
> wifi. In the public's minds it will become some gross slow thing.

Agreed.

David Lang

> Again, reminds me of what the FCC, RCA, and copyright courts did to FM back
> at its birth.
> On Mar 14, 2016 2:13 PM, "David Lang" <david@lang.hm> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2016, dpreed@reed.com wrote:
>>
>> But it will take working with both the FCC and the chip vendors, and the
>>> home access point vendors with a common purpose and agenda. That agenda
>>> needs to be to find the minimum lock that will satisfy the FCC, and a
>>> sufficiently cheap implementation that, along with the cost saving on
>>> design certification, it is cheaper to make a router that is otherwise
>>> open, than to make one whose certification depends on review of all the
>>> code in the router.
>>>
>>
>> This should never require review of all the code in the router. At most it
>> should require review of the firmware code for the wifi chip.
>>
>> Linux has had this sort of thing in the past, look at the ISDN code that
>> required certification to operate.
>>
>> This is a common design pattern. The DAA for phones is now purchasable as
>>> a single module, FCC precertified, so one can make any kind of cordless
>>> phone be certifiable, merely by using that part. That part is more
>>> expensive than one I could design myself, but it saves on certification
>>> cost, because the rest of the phone or modem doesnt need certification, so
>>> one can innovate.
>>>
>>
>> The problem is how much stuff gets stuffed in this certified component.
>> Cell phones, with their 'baseband processor' are a good example of too much
>> functionality being in the certified component.
>>
>> We want to get more access to what's currently in the wifi chipset
>> firmware, not have it all locked down more.
>>
>> David Lang
>> _______________________________________________
>> bufferbloat-fcc-discuss mailing list
>> bufferbloat-fcc-discuss@lists.redbarn.org
>> http://lists.redbarn.org/mailman/listinfo/bufferbloat-fcc-discuss
>>
>