Re: [Proposal]TX flags

[Johannes Berg <johannes-cdvu00un1VgdHxzADdlk8Q@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1241 bytes --]

On Thu, 2009-04-16 at 15:33 -0500, David Young wrote:

> > > TX Flags absent: Use RTS & CTS as needed.
> > > TX Flags present: {
> > > RTS=0, CTS=0: Use RTS & CTS as needed.
> > > RTS=0, CTS=1: Use CTS-to-self.
> > > RTS=1, CTS=0: Use RTS/CTS-handshake.
> > > RTS=1, CTS=1: Use neither RTS nor CTS.
> > > }
> > > 
> > > (By reading the second proposal again, I find it more and more
> > > sympathetic... but let the discussion decide.)
> > 
> > That _works_, but is impossible to describe in any feature discovery.
> 
> The discovery mechanism that we have begun to discuss would have a hard
> time describing that feature at its current level of development, but
> that is not the only feature that it will have a hard time describing.
> Feature discovery may need more development before we measure new
> proposals against it.  What do you think?

True, but why make the job harder than it is? Michael has a good point
too. And we have free bits, I don't see why we can't add one for "do
what I said" (wrt. rts/cts), which, if unset means to do be in automatic
mode and ignore the other bits.

Or we really do use a two-bit field with values;
	0 automatic
	1 neither
	2 rts
	3 cts
or something.

johannes

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]