From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0808830895925279992==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Denis Kenzior Subject: Re: [RFCv3] Document P2P dbus interfaces Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 08:51:50 -0600 Message-ID: <73ee28b9-9336-f547-cf2b-1246181c9dde@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: List-Id: To: iwd@lists.01.org --===============0808830895925279992== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Andrew, >> I think about this differently. You have 2 phases: >> 1. Simple Configuration (WiFi Direct flavor) which involves the group >> formation and wsc negotiation > = > Well, it simply isn't part of WSC, but ok. > = P2P in the end just took WSC and changed the discovery bits a bit. = Fundamentally its still WSC in the end. But I guess depends on how you = think about it... >> 2. Actual connection establishment >> >> I don't see why Disconnect can't just affect 2 without affecting 1. The >> operations are on different interfaces after all. > = > We just don't need 2 methods and I already have Disconnect working > this way (consistent with Station.Disconnect) so it'd mean just > artificially crippling it, also adding a race where your Cancel call > may work or not. Station.Disconnect does not affect WSC state FYI. It can't since = Station doesn't even know about the ongoing WSC process until after = station_connect_network is invoked. So in that respect we'd be = completely consistent. > = > (Tecnically provisioning and the connection are both on the P2P_CLIENT > interface) > = Same as Station/WSC today... Regards, -Denis --===============0808830895925279992==--