From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Sharpe Subject: Re: DMG Support Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 13:40:36 -0700 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: radiotap-owner-sUITvd46vNxg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: To: Krishna Chaitanya Cc: radiotap-sUITvd46vNxg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org List-Id: radiotap@radiotap.org On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 12:56 PM Krishna Chaitanya wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:46 PM Richard Sharpe > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 10:16 AM Krishna Chaitanya > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Guys, > > > > > > I am looking at support for DMG specific fields to radiotap, the only > > > discussion I have found didn't reach any conclusion [1]. > > > > > > Is there a plan to support these fields? It definitely needs a DMG > > > Type field with at least below params (from top of my head) > > > > > > - MCS (and extended MCS) along with data rate mapping > > > - C-PHY > > > - SC-PHY > > > - Low power SC-PHY > > > -OFDM > > > - Beam/Sector/Antenna ID Information > > > - RCPI > > > > Is there any kernel capture code or any other device that would support= this? > Yes, https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/net/wireless/= ath/wil6210/txrx.c#L317. > (Only upstream DMG driver) But, it has minimal info due to lack of DMG > specific fields. > Although, I am not sure whether it supports other PHY info than MCS and R= SSI. > We could query beams, but beam info is not present in rx_desc. > > > The general procedure to get there, however, is: > > > > 1. Propose the new header. > > 2. Implement code in Wireshark to handle the header and include useful > > info in the pseudo-header > > 3. Implement code that can generate sample captures with the new header= . > > 4. Get someone to add such DMG support to DMG-capable devices to > > generate the new header. > > Yes, that's the norm. Before proposing the fields, just wanted to > check if there is an ongoing work or > some kind of decision. So, should I go ahead and propose those fields? I would say yes. Take note that any new headers should use the new TLV form= at. Also, there has been a proposal for an S1G header so you might want to use the next available type. --=20 Regards, Richard Sharpe (=E4=BD=95=E4=BB=A5=E8=A7=A3=E6=86=82=EF=BC=9F=E5=94=AF=E6=9C=89=E6=9D=9C= =E5=BA=B7=E3=80=82--=E6=9B=B9=E6=93=8D)(=E4=BC=A0=E8=AF=B4=E6=9D=9C=E5=BA= =B7=E6=98=AF=E9=85=92=E7=9A=84=E5=8F=91=E6=98=8E=E8=80=85)