Re: Plans for an online meeting regarding Radiotap

Johannes Berg <[email protected]> Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:11:19 +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 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.

> 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

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