Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:04:20 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor_Stefanik?= <netrolller.3d@gmail.com> To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> Cc: Richard Farina <sidhayn@gmail.com>, Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com>, Rafael Laufer <rlaufer@cs.ucla.edu>, Sepherosa Ziehau <sepherosa@gmail.com>, linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>, misc-openbsd <misc@openbsd.org>, Thomas d'Otreppe <tdotreppe@aircrack-ng.org>, freebsd-mobile <freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org>, Mike Kershaw <dragorn@kismetwireless.net>, Damien Bergamini <damien.bergamini@free.fr>, Sam Leffler <sam@freebsd.org>, tech-openbsd <tech@openbsd.org>, netbsd-net <tech-net@netbsd.org>, wireshark-dev <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>, radiotap <radiotap@radiotap.org> Subject: Re: Plans for an online meeting regarding Radiotap Message-ID: <69e28c910908210804h6181aab1w4a864392239aa1ac@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1250865918.4600.9.camel@johannes.local> References: <4A8EAFA6.9010608@gmail.com> <1250865255.4600.6.camel@johannes.local> <69e28c910908210741wd3bc391x311523f5b55fd4f1@mail.gmail.com> <1250865918.4600.9.camel@johannes.local>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2009/8/21 Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>:
> On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 16:41 +0200, G=E1bor Stefanik wrote:
>
>> My intention with the meeting is to form an actual proposal that all
>> implementors can agree on. We can produce proposals, and even new
>> standardized fields to no avail, as some implementors (especially
>> OpenBSD) appear to be stuck with implementations that collide with the
>> standard. These implementors need to be "awakened" and entered into
>> the discussions before anything can be done.
>
> There's nothing the standard can do about that. Like I said, we've
> talked about that enough in my opinion.
>
>> > Your own proposal had technical flaws (and in my opinion tried to do t=
oo
>> > much at a time) that you haven't addressed -- doing that would be much
>> > more productive than any such meeting.
>>
>> What technical flaws are you trying to point out exactly? (The TX
>> flags field? My point is that it's worthless to "standardize" TX flags
>> by extending it and moving to "Defined fields" if noone is willing to
>> implement it.)
>
> But people are already implementing it, and if they do something else
> that's their problem. The flaw I'm thinking of was over the RTS/CTS
> handling where some people (including myself) had comments.
I've reworked RTS/CTS since then, just haven't got to sending a new
proposal yet. The current plan is as follows:
TX_FLAGS & 0x0002: Use CTS
TX_FLAGS & 0x0004: Use RTS
TX_FLAGS & 0x0020: Disable RTS/CTS usage
Or, in more C++-like notation:
switch (TX_FLAGS & 0x0026) {
case 0x0002:
Use CTS;
break;
case 0x0004:
case 0x0006:
Use RTS;
break;
case 0x0020:
Disable RTS/CTS usage;
break;
default:
fall back to automatic selection
}
> Besides,
> you're supposed to make at least two implementations when proposing a
> standard field.
If I remember correctly, I made an implementation for the Linux kernel
(a generator-side implementation) and one for Wireshark (a parser-side
implementation). Or should I make two generator-side implementations
according to the requirement (e.g. one for Linux, another for
OpenBSD)?
>
> johannes
>
--=20
Vista: [V]iruses, [I]ntruders, [S]pyware, [T]rojans and [A]dware. :-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?69e28c910908210804h6181aab1w4a864392239aa1ac>