Bad FCS flag
Johannes Berg <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.netbsd.radiotap |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi,
Sorry I haven't actually updated my proposal, had other stuff.
Here's a representation of the non-conflict we're running into with RX
flags:
* wireshark defines that bit 6 in field 1 ("flags") means "bad FCS".
* the unofficial RX-flags stuff defines that bit 0 in "RX flags" means
"bad FCS"
I want to avoid having _two_ "bad FCS" bits and chose the RX flags one
to leave room for possible generic flags in "flags"/1, but I don't
really care either way.
Opinions?
johannes
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 836 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Johannes Berg (powerbook) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJIwZWxAAoJEKVg1VMiehFYD24P/3aqr1a8vReqcBtqSLk0mk1g PmqMLmZLzYJT4YzB8GVGIhjPMi1FqGJAh11tdUSstItq5NBY1qeXyVEu0wDNZJIb akn1TlUk6fGPvrZHlnZGB69RN3TMNQ5ySXaXE2HU2kGNFKByRXvMxCgYTTX9zU1J xhmsrqPEqANRKGXnrJPfBTG8KBeOQfA1dUgyjI0counIhYxGlhUSht0HiIjNuqQC SHXp4rYf4rHqaO076bkjxDzTB5Di8k9ReoyyEAaBk3/X5NWtRLhDTcVf4pP7kRRq QXIckPRWgFGcyZd2xkT1Kpxksej5OLfHbAXbTBXhsGJ97elvdTlTBswzaF7GAvlO xezpItyI5UB2WowhLiBU0HrVOdhIdrDDLJxuBfXoo0S6NrCw9kbSTcUh3C84Gs8x z0/Ot2oHl/L5B/XKoVuZHgOCzTvhriKSm6A5AwAeEe92vzoWezK09L2vkgXDFUjp Og432VJsRcaGPjhQVxAyyP8L0aUVp54KukAIhiiX0LCJrUqeoG287sTRbbl3C+5D Ha9s74Rldxp5Pyx//elgBKTigo3sRaml+D93BAKinlvqwKeQChf6GGoF9RpoAvit 0PxSmqX5jPfAVFDcMUbSaI//Y3LakFxAwVa+MIG+kFNir2pHKDyV9QapUJmKYh9w h+F/MKPA8DhVhmEPYJir =a5Tz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----