Re: Plans for an online meeting regarding Radiotap

From: Dave Young <hidave.darkstar-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
To: "Gábor Stefanik" <netrolller.3d-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes-cdvu00un1VgdHxzADdlk8Q@public.gmane.org>,
	Richard Farina <sidhayn-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
	Mike Kershaw
	<dragorn-8I8a9W+rkIX1ZkIrOfZKgqxOck334EZe@public.gmane.org>,
	Sam Leffler <sam-h+KGxgPPiopAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>,
	Rafael Laufer <rlaufer-764C0pRuGfqVc3sceRu5cw@public.gmane.org>,
	Damien Bergamini <damien.bergamini-GANU6spQydw@public.gmane.org>,
	Sepherosa Ziehau
	<sepherosa-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
	Thomas d'Otreppe
	<tdotreppe-Vd9GllorE+ZAczc9/5Kimg@public.gmane.org>,
	radiotap <radiotap-sUITvd46vNxg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>,
	linux-wireless
	<linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
	freebsd-mobile
	<freebsd-mobile-h+KGxgPPiopAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>,
	misc-openbsd <misc-7YlrpqBBQ3VAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>,
	tech-openbsd <tech-7YlrpqBBQ3VAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>,
	netbsd-net <tech-net-S783fYmB3Ccdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
	wireshark-dev
	<wireshark-dev-IZ8446WsY0/dtAWm4Da02A@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: Plans for an online meeting regarding Radiotap
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:38:35 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <a8e1da0908212138k64d11696p697e47c458f1c544@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <69e28c910908211455u5dcd70f0u94eab510ab91a69a-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>

2009/8/22 Gábor Stefanik <netrolller.3d-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>:
> 2009/8/21 Johannes Berg <johannes-cdvu00un1VgdHxzADdlk8Q@public.gmane.org>:
>> On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 17:04 +0200, Gábor Stefanik wrote:
>>
>>> I've reworked RTS/CTS since then, just haven't got to sending a new
>>> proposal yet. The current plan is as follows:
>>>
>>> TX_FLAGS & 0x0002: Use CTS
>>> TX_FLAGS & 0x0004: Use RTS
>>> TX_FLAGS & 0x0020: Disable RTS/CTS usage
>>
>> Seems a bit strange, wouldn't setting neither RTS nor CTS have the
>> effect? Seems like 0x20 should rather be "use automatic and ignore the
>> other bits". Anyway, not appropriate here, you should just bring a new
>> proposal.
>
> The point is that if all bits are 0, auto-setup is used. The problem
> with my original proposal (using two bits) was that an all-zero value
> had different effect than not including the TX flags field (and simply
> swapping "none" and "auto" would result in an illogicality where what
> would logically be "use both" would become "use neither" - just the
> opposite of its logical meaning). Making 0x20 mean "Auto-select
> RTS/CTS", interpreting all-zeros as "Use neither", would have the same
> problem as my proposal - all-zeros is different from a missing field.
> (An empty, zeroed field 15 should have no effect on the process,
> behaving as if field 15 was not present in the header.)
>
>>
>>> If I remember correctly, I made an implementation for the Linux kernel
>>> (a generator-side implementation) and one for Wireshark (a parser-side
>>> implementation). Or should I make two generator-side implementations
>>> according to the requirement (e.g. one for Linux, another for
>>> OpenBSD)?
>>
>> No, that was ok, I just meant that therefore by definition it can't be a
>> problem of lack of implementations.
>>
>> johannes
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Vista: [V]iruses, [I]ntruders, [S]pyware, [T]rojans and [A]dware. :-)
>


Here also, please fix your cc-list, I'm not the david what you want to send to

-- 
Regards
dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html