From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Young Subject: Re: MCS field: RFA Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:50:01 -0500 Message-ID: <20100325235000.GX414@ojctech.com> References: <40101cc31001260626g4a47b7c6gde6f99e477e69ac9@mail.gmail.com> <20100126174728.GV1060@ojctech.com> <1264584965.25642.15.camel@johannes.local> <20100127153002.GC1060@ojctech.com> <40101cc31001270732h3e27511bn9270e2a5a082735f@mail.gmail.com> <20100202195424.GE1060@ojctech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100202195424.GE1060-eZodSLrBbDpBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: radiotap-owner-sUITvd46vNxg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org To: radiotap-sUITvd46vNxg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org List-Id: radiotap@radiotap.org On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 01:54:25PM -0600, David Young wrote: > On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 10:09:37PM +0000, Bill Stafford wrote: > > I also have a question about how the RadioTap design deals with information > > that may not be available. I know that RadioTap works for many different > > drivers, and I am wondering if all the drivers get full information about > > the packets. > > The problem of don't-know/don't-care flags has come up before. It'd be > nice to have a general solution. I've been thinking about this. Instead of adding 2**n-byte aligned fields with don't-know/don't-care flags, what do people think about using the presence bits in the header to indicate the presence of 1-bit-wide fields? Dave -- David Young OJC Technologies dyoung-eZodSLrBbDpBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933