Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:45:18 +0200 From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor?= Stefanik <netrolller.3d@gmail.com> 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: <1250865918.4600.9.camel@johannes.local> In-Reply-To: <69e28c910908210741wd3bc391x311523f5b55fd4f1@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A8EAFA6.9010608@gmail.com> <1250865255.4600.6.camel@johannes.local> <69e28c910908210741wd3bc391x311523f5b55fd4f1@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-JaV4Oxpf3uVUP0bg8tdb Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 16:41 +0200, G=C3=A1bor 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 to= o > > much at a time) that you haven't addressed -- doing that would be much > > more productive than any such meeting. >=20 > 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. Besides, you're supposed to make at least two implementations when proposing a standard field. johannes --=-JaV4Oxpf3uVUP0bg8tdb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAABAgAGBQJKjrL7AAoJEODzc/N7+QmahHIP/1MlzeKmu9boxW2wEDfO/0gn td56z1fQ1NabN43P/bzwVih9Ia8aa5Z1JVDV7MARTkFRtHdPpuOhgA9h6D6aAzKv HeZXyigvajRpMbn2i8t4ZFWull6E4ROoglZKtUsVg1acoPZyBCUl4Zu/DOOViEvk FLLLOF50LD6/OGin4g4nrLD2OLo4NDFXOwdUDneJrJVnPnnJAzI/49f5DnPpmOK2 i7XfD/OHCyIT5VJsDV1+gCDav5Rvmync9dkle3NiENZareINrTc+QtyFdXlQbDyx btl+Ha/ZDL2GwYq36wrTOAyu01C3jF8uhpb+cim19VTAUImQXxad+EonIXh3rjo0 JU2xaLFITadjEf9lwnnXwBmmJpMCdZMYRsDE2Iq4fHnhyDcj5Zye0CI6GGa00DHP P3+O6iKsbci/67eQJNvirVUEk6QihLPizpxaQwiJ8EQGUSUQegoIQ/HHePn9v/Ph ZTNBoCcZNyeaDBQZQeG61xNQyNXl93hg0FvvB5eRhVZIEWuTu1WYWYikKSvPVERE Zgrmar4NssmASwpbojMtO3uUtjv9f/O0wFNwcUtk4YZ9srZdJaDBojzAmvigmPVa xUGVQU+rt0UF9GnEov8VkRbcQrXqP2RLDbSWp04Wq8qgWBlrzcxSzItdgC/ktDpZ 1SKhTx1lbDAYQr+0bbMB =QXFI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-JaV4Oxpf3uVUP0bg8tdb--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1250865918.4600.9.camel>