Re: Plans for an online meeting regarding Radiotap

Johannes Berg <[email protected]> Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:45:18 +0200

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.kernel.wireless.general,gmane.network.wireless.radiotap,gmane.os.freebsd.devel.mobile,gmane.os.openbsd.misc,gmane.os.openbsd.tech,gmane.os.netbsd.devel.network,gmane.network.wireshark.devel
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 16:41 +0200, Gábor Stefanik wrote:

> My intention with the meeting is to form an actual proposal that all
> implementors can agree on. We can produce proposals, and even new
> standardized fields to no avail, as some implementors (especially
> OpenBSD) appear to be stuck with implementations that collide with the
> standard. These implementors need to be "awakened" and entered into
> the discussions before anything can be done.

There's nothing the standard can do about that. Like I said, we've
talked about that enough in my opinion.

> > Your own proposal had technical flaws (and in my opinion tried to do too
> > much at a time) that you haven't addressed -- doing that would be much
> > more productive than any such meeting.
> 
> What technical flaws are you trying to point out exactly? (The TX
> flags field? My point is that it's worthless to "standardize" TX flags
> by extending it and moving to "Defined fields" if noone is willing to
> implement it.)

But people are already implementing it, and if they do something else
that's their problem. The flaw I'm thinking of was over the RTS/CTS
handling where some people (including myself) had comments. Besides,
you're supposed to make at least two implementations when proposing a
standard field.

johannes

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 801 B)